Retrieve the registry-sourced profile of a succession target by ID: owner age band, filed revenue / net margin / equity (with currency, FX rate and accounts period), and the national registry link. Missing fields are null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The unique ID of the succession target (e.g. fr_..., uk_..., no_...). | |
| api_key | No | AcquireEU API Key (optional if Authorization header is set). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that fields are registry-sourced and that missing fields are null, which sets expectations for return completeness. It does not cover auth/permission behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool the main behavioral trait (nullable fields) is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact enumeration of returned fields and a note on null handling. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description lists the fields returned and the null behavior, which is the key missing piece for an agent. It lacks pagination or error handling details, but for a simple retrieval-by-ID tool it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'id' (with example prefixes) and 'api_key'. The description adds context by indicating the ID is a unique succession target identifier, but contributes little beyond the schema, so baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'registry-sourced profile of a succession target by ID'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling search_succession_targets by being the detail-fetch by ID, and it enumerates the exact fields returned (owner age band, filed revenue/net margin/equity, national registry link).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is the detail endpoint for an ID, which a reader can contrast with search_succession_targets, but it does not explicitly say 'use this after search_succession_targets to get full profile' or state when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.