Incorporate Where: the site's own MCP server — checker, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not...
Scored across 6 tools
The set splits cleanly into two domains: the checker_* decision-guide tools and the enquiry_* submission tools. Within the checker group, start (first question), answer (advance), and tree (dump everything) could momentarily be confused, but the descriptions clearly delineate them. enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields/submit_enquiry are each distinct in purpose.
Two coherent prefix families (checker_ and enquiry_) give a predictable pattern, and the checker_* tools use a consistent prefix_noun form. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which puts the verb first and breaks the prefix_noun convention used elsewhere.
Six tools is well-scoped for the apparent purpose of guiding a decision and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy, and nothing feels thin or bloated.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: starting the guide, advancing it, dumping the whole tree, reading the enquiry description, discovering fields, and the two-step submit with confirmation token. Only minor niceties like a guide-reset or explicit enquiry-status check are absent, which agents can work around.
Given a question id and the chosen option (its choice index), return the next question or the final verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior—returning either the next question or a final verdict—but it does not mention whether the flow state is mutated, what happens for invalid choices, or any session/state 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?
A single, information-dense sentence. The title and description work together without repetition or filler, and the key input/output behavior is front-loaded.
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?
Adequate for a two-parameter tool: it names both inputs and describes the possible return. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of fully describing the response shape, error behavior, or what the caller should do with the returned next question/final verdict.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's clarification that `question` is a question id and `choice` is the chosen option's index is essential. It adds meaning beyond the raw property names and types, though it omits details like how to obtain valid question ids or bounds beyond minimum 0.
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 states a specific operation: given a question id and a choice index, return the next question or final verdict. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which have different roles in the flow.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when a user has answered a question and the flow should advance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., starting with checker_start), or how it relates to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The first question of the Where to incorporate: narrow the shortlist decision guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is the first question of a guide; it does not state what happens when called, whether it initializes state, returns a question, or has side effects. This is a notable gap for a checker-style tool.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key fact that this is the first question and names the specific decision guide it belongs to.
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?
The tool is structurally simple with no parameters and no output schema, and the description conveys its entry-point role. However, the absence of behavioral details and annotations leaves uncertainty about what a call to checker_start actually returns or does, so completeness is only partial.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 identifies the tool as the first question in a specific named decision guide, 'Where to incorporate: narrow the shortlist.' This makes the tool's entry-point role reasonably clear, though it lacks a direct action verb and does not fully distinguish it from the checker_* siblings.
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 phrase 'first question' clearly implies that this tool should be used at the start of the decision guide. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every question, option and verdict of the Where to incorporate: narrow the shortlist guide, for reasoning end to end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool exposes the entire tree rather than a single node, which is useful, but it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how the content is structured, or any constraints such as response size or navigation dependencies.
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?
The description is a single sentence that communicates the content scope and intended use without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys the full scope of returned content and the purpose of using it. It could be stronger by explicitly relating it to the sibling step-based tools, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level documentation is not required. The schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description adds enough context about what the returned content contains.
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 clearly identifies the tool as containing the complete decision tree for the incorporation guide, listing its components: every question, option, and verdict. It is not a tautology and conveys more than the title alone, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.
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 phrase 'for reasoning end to end' implies the tool should be used when the agent needs the full decision tree rather than a single step. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like checker_answer or checker_start, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Incorporate Where: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent critical expectations about costs, guarantees, and privacy-related behavior.
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?
The description is about 55 words across three sentences and is front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence contributes, though there is minor redundancy between 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free,' and the title partially repeats the same assurances.
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 simple 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines purpose, flow mechanics, non-financial nature, and return contents. It could go one step further by explicitly stating that the tool itself does not submit an enquiry, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' largely cover that.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so there is no schema coverage burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool communicates rather than parameters, which satisfies the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 states a clear purpose with a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and enumerates exactly what the enquiry flow entails and returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the 'Read first' explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry, clearly separate from checker_*, enquiry_fields, and the submit action itself.
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 opening 'Read first' is an explicit contextual instruction: the agent should consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It conveys when to use the tool (before engaging with the enquiry flow), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every field of the Incorporate Where enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options where there are any. Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned and notes that allowed options are included 'where there are any', which is a useful nuance. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor describe the response structure (e.g., array vs object) or any potential errors.
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 with no wasted content. The first sentence comprehensively lists what is returned; the second gives actionable next-step guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is quite complete. It explains the content of the response and how to use the returned keys. Minor gaps include the exact response format (JSON object vs array) and lack of an explicit read-only guarantee, but these are not critical for this simple tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. It does explain the field keys that will be used as answer keys for submit_enquiry, which is related but not about tool parameters.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('every field of the Incorporate Where enquiry') and enumerates the type of data returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous. It indirectly distinguishes from siblings by linking to submit_enquiry, though it does not mention enquiry_describe.
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 second sentence gives explicit guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This clearly tells the agent how to use the output of this tool in conjunction with a sibling tool. It does not state when not to use it or compare with enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submits an enquiry to Incorporate Where — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. Step 1: call with the answers (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and consent=true; it validates and returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token — show the person the summary and the consent line. Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token; the enquiry is then submitted, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "Send my contact details to up to three US incorporation services, chosen by Incorporate Where, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | Yes | the person's answers, keyed by field key | |
| consent | Yes | true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three US incorporation services, chosen by Incorporate Where, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them. | |
| confirmation | No | the confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the two-phase gating, that step 1 is a non-committal validation returning a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent semantics. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose and the two steps clearly delineated, so an agent can act on the first sentence. It loses a point because the full consent paragraph is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is duplication rather than added value.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 causes (submission plus a verification email), which is exactly the information needed to drive the flow correctly. Nothing material is missing for a 3-param, 2-step tool.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties 'answers' to field keys originating in enquiry_fields, states consent must be true at both steps, and explains that 'confirmation' comes from step 1 only after the person approves the summary. That cross-step interaction is not derivable from the schema alone.
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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Incorporate Where) and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like enquiry_fields or enquiry_describe without opening any 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?
Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact condition that selects each step: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also names the prerequisite data source (field keys from enquiry_fields), leaving nothing to inference.
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.
submit_enquiry1 field changedInput schema / properties / consent / descriptionPrevious value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a relevant cross-border corporate adviser, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three US incorporation services, chosen by Incorporate Where, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."checker_answerchecker_startchecker_treeenquiry_describeenquiry_fieldssubmit_enquiryClass Q Checker: the site's own MCP server — checker, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not a...
Catchment Checker: the site's own MCP server — checker, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not...
SAR Builder: the site's own MCP server — checker, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not a...
Eligible By Descent: the site's own MCP server — checker, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff,...
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
