Evidence-backed Skilled Worker sponsor change-impact decisions for England.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single-event assessment, batch assessment, product info, source status, and supported-event listing. The two assessment tools are explicitly separated by single vs. batch usage, with clear exclusions in their descriptions.
Tool names are readable and consistently snake_case, but they mix verb-led names like assess_change_impact and list_supported_change_events with noun-led names like england_works_watch_info and licensing_source_status. This is still understandable but not a fully consistent verb_noun convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server: two paid assessment tools, one batch variant, and three free supporting tools. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary expansion.
The tool set covers the full service surface: single and batch change assessment, supported-event discovery, product/pricing information, and evidence source status. There are no obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the stated domain.
Paid single-event change decision. Use for one concrete Skilled Worker sponsor event to determine impact, whether reporting is triggered, whether it is AFFECTED/NOT_AFFECTED, what the sponsor must do, or required actions. Handles one absence, salary, role, remote/home/work-location, delayed start, stop-sponsoring, organisation, TUPE, merger, or takeover event. x402 USDC. Not multiple events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | One structured Skilled Worker sponsor-change event. Supply the event-specific facts you know; missing required decision facts fail closed rather than being guessed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is a paid call ('x402 USDC'), it handles only a single event, and it covers a defined set of event categories. There is no contradiction with the declared annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact ('Paid single-event change decision'). There is minor redundancy between 'single-event', 'Handles one', and 'Not multiple events', but each sentence carries useful decision-relevant 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?
Given the complex nested payload and no output schema, the description usefully explains what the tool computes (impact, reporting trigger, AFFECTED/NOT_AFFECTED, sponsor actions) and what inputs it accepts. It does not describe the response format or detailed payment mechanics, but the schema and sibling context cover most operational gaps.
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 the schema already documents the payload object, required fields, route constraint, and event_type enum. The description adds high-level context about the event categories but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource: 'Use for one concrete Skilled Worker sponsor event to determine impact, whether reporting is triggered, whether it is AFFECTED/NOT_AFFECTED, what the sponsor must do, or required actions.' It also enumerates covered event categories and explicitly contrasts with multiple-event processing, so it is clearly distinguishable from batch_assess_changes.
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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('one concrete Skilled Worker sponsor event'), lists the decision outcomes it produces, and states a hard exclusion ('Not multiple events'). This effectively routes the agent away from batch_assess_changes, and the funded 'Paid' framing adds a practical cost signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Paid batch/multiple-event change decision for 1-25 events. Use for a list, batch, set, several, many, multiple, 5, 8, 20 or other collection of sponsor changes; evaluate them together and return per-event results plus outcome counts. x402 USDC. Not for one event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the operation is paid, processes batches of 1-25, evaluates events together, and returns per-event results plus counts. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains reasonably short. The long synonym list ('list, batch, set, several, many, multiple, 5, 8, 20 or other collection') is somewhat redundant but still helps an agent match user intent.
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?
It covers the essential batch context, count limits, payment requirement, and result aggregation. However, the tool has a complex nested payload and no output schema, so the description omits important details about how individual event decisions are represented, route constraints, and edge-case behavior.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only frames the payload as a collection of 1-25 sponsor change events, which largely restates schema bounds. It does not explain the many nested fields, required event_type/route semantics, or which fields matter for which event types.
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 this is a paid batch/multiple-event change decision for 1-25 events, describes the output as per-event results plus outcome counts, and explicitly contrasts with single-event usage. It is specific about the resource and operation and distinguishes it from the single-event path.
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?
It gives explicit guidance to use the tool for lists, batches, sets, or collections and warns 'Not for one event.' However, it does not explicitly name the alternative single-event sibling tool, so guidance about alternatives is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free product information. Use for service scope, what England Works Watch does, pricing, cost, x402 network, payment, MCP endpoint, discovery metadata, or legal-advice disclaimer. Not for source freshness, supported-event lists, or change decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the scope of information, but does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as response format, latency, or content variability beyond what the output schema likely covers.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists supported topics, and ends with clear exclusions, making it easy for an agent to parse and 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 zero-parameter information tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, this description covers what the tool offers and what it does not. The explicit topic list and exclusions leave little ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's information scope rather than 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 tool as providing product information for England Works Watch, with a detailed list of covered topics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating what it is not for, such as supported-event lists and change decisions.
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 gives explicit 'Use for' guidance covering service scope, pricing, payment, MCP endpoint, and legal disclaimer topics. It also provides explicit 'Not for' exclusions that map to sibling tools like list_supported_change_events and assess_change_impact, making alternative selection straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free GOV.UK evidence source status. Use for current guidance, source freshness, stale sources, changed fingerprints, blocking sources, review status, evidence lifecycle, or source coverage. Not for a specific sponsor change decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added behavioral value is the 'free' note and the domain scoping to GOV.UK evidence sources. It does not describe pagination, freshness guarantees, or failure behavior, but those are less critical given the zero-parameter read-only nature and rich output 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?
The description is two sentences, begins immediately with the core identity, lists the intended uses in a compact comma-separated form, and closes with a single clear exclusion. Every clause earns its place and there is no fluff.
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, read-only, idempotent status tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows what the tool is for, what it is not for, and has the full suite of use cases without needing extra detail.
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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to add. The rule baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on use cases rather than trying to document nonexistent 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 identifies the resource as GOV.UK evidence source status and enumerates the kinds of questions it answers (freshness, stale sources, changed fingerprints, blocking sources, review status, lifecycle, coverage). It doesn't state an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks', but the use-case list and the exclusion of sponsor change decisions make the purpose clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling change-assessment tools.
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?
It explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use for current guidance, source freshness, stale sources, changed fingerprints, blocking sources, review status, evidence lifecycle, or source coverage') and provides a clear when-not-to-use case ('Not for a specific sponsor change decision'). This gives an agent direct routing guidance, even though alternative siblings are not named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free supported-event list. Use when asking which sponsor events the tool can handle, which change types/categories are supported, or to list supported events: absence, salary, role, work location, start delay, stop sponsorship, organisation change, TUPE, merger, takeover. Capability/list only; not impact, reporting, or required-action decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying this is a pure capability/list endpoint and not an analysis or action-oriented tool. It does not contradict the annotations and adds value beyond them.
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 compact, front-loading the core purpose and usage conditions, and then listing example events. The phrase 'Free supported-event list' is slightly ambiguous because 'free' could mean cost-free or free-of-analysis, but the remainder of the sentence clarifies meaning. Overall, every sentence earns its place and there is no padding.
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, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, when to use it, and what it will not do. Sibling tool differentiation is handled well. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the returned list contains rather than on input semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate here.
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 a list operation for supported change events, enumerating specific event types (absence, salary, role, work location, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from analysis-oriented siblings by explicitly saying it is 'capability/list only; not impact, reporting, or required-action decisions.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when asking which sponsor events the tool can handle, which change types/categories are supported, or to list supported events. It also provides clear exclusions, directing users away from impact, reporting, or required-action decisions. This effectively guides the agent away from sibling tools like assess_change_impact or batch_assess_changes.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
assess_change_impactbatch_assess_changesengland_works_watch_infolicensing_source_statuslist_supported_change_eventsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
UK visa data tools: Skilled Worker going rates by job/SOC code, sponsor licence check, visa fees.
CQC registration, provider-change and notification decisions for England with official evidence.
Check whether a company holds a UK or Netherlands work-visa sponsorship licence.
UK government data intelligence with proprietary scoring from 400+ sources
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
