Check whether CSRD applies after the 2026 simplification; read official VSME and ESRS disclosures.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools serve clearly different purposes: one determines whether CSRD/VSME obligations apply to a company, the other retrieves the official text of a specific disclosure. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_reporting_obligation, explain_disclosure). The convention is predictable and readable.
Two tools is thin for a regulatory-advice server covering CSRD, VSME, and related standards. The scope is narrow enough that it is defensible, but it borders on under-provisioned.
Core needs are covered (obligation check and disclosure lookup), but there is no way to enumerate or search available disclosure codes, so agents must already know codes like E1-8 or B1. This is a notable gap for discovery and navigation.
Checks whether CSRD reporting applies to a company after the 2026 EU simplification, whether the voluntary VSME standard and the value-chain cap are relevant, and whether the Dutch CO2-Prestatieladder matters. Uses headcount and turnover; no account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Two-letter country code, for example NL | |
| asked_by | No | Who is asking for sustainability information | |
| employees | Yes | Average number of employees of the group | |
| eu_parent | No | True when the group is headed in the EU (default true) | |
| turnover_eur | Yes | Annual net turnover of the group in euros |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: no account/authentication is required, and the analysis is driven by headcount and turnover rather than arbitrary inputs.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by input and auth qualifiers. Every clause carries information, though the enumeration of four regimes makes the first sentence dense.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the four determinations the tool returns (CSRD applicability, VSME relevance, value-chain cap, CO2-Prestatieladder). Adequate for an agent to know what comes back, though the shape of the result is unstated.
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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the asked_by enum and eu_parent default is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that headcount and turnover are the operative inputs, adding little semantic value beyond that baseline.
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 (checks) and a precisely scoped resource (CSRD applicability after the 2026 simplification, VSME, value-chain cap, Dutch CO2-Prestatieladder). The scope detail makes it distinguishable in practice from the sibling explain_disclosure, though the sibling is never named.
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?
"Uses headcount and turnover; no account needed" gives input and auth context, and the purpose implies when it applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against explain_disclosure, so the agent must infer which of the two siblings to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the official text of a disclosure in the EU voluntary standard for SMEs (VSME, B1-B11 and C1-C9) or in the ESRS (2026 edition, for example E1-8 or S1-5), with its EUR-Lex link. ESRS text is available in English, Dutch, German, French, Italian, Spanish and Polish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Disclosure code, for example B3 or E1-8 | |
| language | No | The language the person writes in, for labels and headings, for example nl. Defaults to the AI app's locale, else English. | |
| standard | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing that output includes the text plus an EUR-Lex link, and that only ESRS is multilingual while VSME is implicitly English/default. It stops short of stating behavior for invalid codes or unknown disclosures.
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 tight sentences with the return content front-loaded, followed by the language caveat. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back (official text, EUR-Lex link) and the language dimension. It leaves a small gap on error/not-found behavior and on whether VSME text is available in non-English languages.
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?
At 67% schema coverage, the schema documents code format and language defaulting logic, but the description adds the valid code namespaces for each standard and ties language availability to ESRS specifically, which the enum alone does not convey. This meaningfully extends the schema rather than repeating it.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the official text of a disclosure') and scopes it precisely to two named frameworks with their code ranges (VSME B1-B11/C1-C9, ESRS E1-8, S1-5). Sibling check_reporting_obligation is about determining obligations, so the retrieval-vs-assessment distinction is unambiguous.
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 for looking up a disclosure's official wording, and the code-range examples help the agent know which arguments are valid. However, it never states when to choose this versus check_reporting_obligation, nor any prerequisite such as needing a code from the obligation check first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_reporting_obligationexplain_disclosureYour carbon footprint, VSME and CSRD reports and climate plan, with the source of every figure.
Vietnam GHG inventory obligation checker, 2026 regulations, CBAM and ESG articles (read-only).
Cited search over SEC filings, earnings transcripts and EU regulation, with fetch mode. 14 tools.
Read SEC filings, reported financial facts and sampled filing comparisons with original sources.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
