Select only to list supported councils/local licensing authorities or check whether a named authority is supported. Do not use for compliance, source health, pricing, or policy-capability decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-oriented list/check operation and includes a strong guardrail against misuse, but it does not describe the output payload or what determines whether an authority is supported. For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 the core purpose front-loaded and the negative usage guardrail in the second sentence. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or vague 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?
For a no-argument list/check tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the intended use and excludes adjacent decision types. The exact meaning of 'supported' could be clarified, but the low complexity and available output schema keep that gap minor.
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 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter details the description must explain. The mention of checking a named authority is achievable by inspecting the returned supported-authority list rather than requiring a parameter, so there is no schema conflict.
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 verb and resource: list supported councils/local licensing authorities or check whether a named authority is supported. It also explicitly carves out what the tool is not for, which helps an agent distinguish it from the sibling tools like licensing_source_status or local_policy_capabilities.
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 when-to-use guidance and clear when-not-to-use criteria covering compliance, source health, pricing, and policy-capability decisions. However, it does not name the specific sibling tools an agent should use instead, so alternative routing is left to inference.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role, and the descriptions are very explicit about routing, especially between licensing_source_status and source_fingerprint_status. However, several names are easy to confuse at a glance (premises_licence_info vs premises_licence_preflight, licensing_source_status vs source_fingerprint_status, preflight_readiness vs premises_licence_preflight), so an agent might need to read carefully.
All names use clear lowercase snake_case, but the set mixes verb-led names (compare_licensing_requirements, list_supported_authorities) with noun-led descriptive names (licensing_source_status, local_policy_capabilities, premises_licence_preflight). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a premises-licensing preflight service, covering the decision itself, readiness, comparison, capabilities, source health, fingerprint diagnostics, supported authorities, and pricing/info. No tool is redundant, and the set does not feel bloated.
The tool surface covers the full preflight workflow: input-readiness check, actual compliance decision, cross-authority comparison, local-policy capability awareness, source status/fingerprint diagnostics, supported-authority lookup, and pricing/service discovery. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.