What acquisition funding providers publish about themselves, each fact carrying the URL it was read from and the date. Includes whether they are still accepting applications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 discloses key behavioral traits: each fact includes the URL and date of origin, and it explicitly notes whether providers are still accepting applications. This goes beyond a simple 'list' and gives the agent insight into the data's provenance and current status. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a parameterless list, this is adequate.
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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('What acquisition funding providers publish about themselves'), then adds detail about the facts' provenance and the acceptance status. No wasted words; every clause adds 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of what is returned. It explains the nature of the facts (URL and date) and includes the acceptance status. It does not specify pagination, ordering, or limits, but for a simple list tool, this is likely sufficient. The absence of an output schema means the description must convey the return structure, which it partially does by describing the facts.
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 is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning since there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties), and the description's content about the output is sufficient.
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 states the tool's function: it lists acquisition funding providers and the facts they publish, with each fact including the source URL and date, plus whether they accept applications. This is a specific verb (list) with a resource (funding providers) and distinct output content, distinguishing it from siblings like get_posture and get_structure which are unrelated.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident from the name and description, and the siblings are clearly different domains (posture, structure). The usage is implied but not articulated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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.