Get a participant's current state
Directory presence, SML registration + current SMP, business card, the company-register enrichment block, endpoints and serving seats for a Peppol participant. Discovered participants carry no card; unmatched participants carry company: null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Canonical `scheme::value` Peppol identifier (e.g. `0208::0762747721`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the exact fields returned and by noting edge cases ('Discovered participants carry no card; unmatched participants carry company: null'). This goes beyond the basic operation and helps set expectations for response shape, even though it doesn't discuss error handling or auth.
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: the first states the core purpose immediately; the second enumerates included components and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 a single parameter, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects well: what is returned and a couple of edge cases. The phrase 'unmatched participants' is slightly ambiguous (whether it means participant not found or company not matched), so a perfect 5 would require clearer error/not-found semantics.
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%—the 'id' parameter is fully documented as a canonical 'scheme::value' Peppol identifier with an example. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a participant's current state', then enumerates exactly what that includes (directory presence, SML registration, SMP, business card, endpoints, etc.). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_participant_history (current vs history) and list_participants (single vs list).
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 'current state' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when you need a snapshot of a participant's current data rather than history or statistics. The list of components also hints at use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'for historical data use get_participant_history'.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
