recent_suspension_noticesLists carriers and brokers FMCSA recently served an involuntary suspension notice (usually because insurance was cancelled), with the date each suspension takes effect. Until that date FMCSA still shows the company as "Active".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many, newest first (default 25) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: the notice has an effective date and FMCSA continues to report the company as "Active" until that date, which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to interpret results correctly.
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 filler; the scope statement comes first and the interpretation caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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 one-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (carriers/brokers, effective date) and the key interpretive caveat about "Active" status. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its default of 25). The description's "newest first" phrasing echoes the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: lists carriers/brokers that received an FMCSA involuntary suspension notice, and names the usual cause (insurance cancelled). It is distinguishable from the per-carrier siblings lookup_carrier and check_carrier_list by being a notice feed, though that contrast is left implicit rather than stated.
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 by the content (a recent-notices feed with newest-first default), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling lookup tools. An agent can infer the context but is not routed.
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.