Register a company (by CUI) to monitor. Stores a fingerprint of its current registry record as the baseline; poll_watchlist then reports changes between monthly ONRC snapshots - a new director, a new CAEN activity, an address or status change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cui | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a fingerprint of the current registry record is persisted as a baseline and that change detection is driven by monthly ONRC snapshots, naming the kinds of changes (director, CAEN activity, address, status). It omits whether repeat calls overwrite the baseline, how to unwatch, or any permission requirements.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the downstream behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the side effect, the storage mechanism, the refresh cadence, and the consuming tool. Only the absence of lifecycle details (re-registration, cancellation) keeps it from full completeness.
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?
One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the CUI identifies the company to register, which is the essential semantic, but adds no format, validation, or example detail beyond that.
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 and resource ('Register a company ... to monitor') with the keying identifier (CUI), and contrasts itself with the sibling poll_watchlist. An agent can distinguish it from watch_caen and poll_watchlist without opening a schema.
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?
Explains the workflow position: register here, then poll_watchlist reports changes between monthly snapshots. It gives clear context for when this tool is used, but does not explicitly state when-not to use it or how it differs from watch_caen beyond the one-off registration framing.
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.