Trusgent MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool fetches a resource, implying read-only, but doesn't mention any potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. It adds context about the ID being public and shared with other routes, which is useful, but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action (fetch one Agent Card) and the key identifier (public trusgentId). It then adds an efficient parenthetical reference to related routes. No wasted words.

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 simple fetch operation with a single required parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what to provide and what it gets. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it doesn't disclose the structure of the returned Agent Card or any error handling specifics like invalid IDs, which would be useful for a complete picture.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter, describing trusgentId as a public Agent ID with an example. The tool description reinforces the parameter's role by explaining it's the same ID used in other routes, which adds context but is not critical since the schema already covers it. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool fetches an Agent Card by public trusgentId, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the same ID used in /t/{id} and /b/{id}, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what it 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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a trusgentId and need a single Agent Card. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like search_agents or verify_agent, but the scope is clear from the ID reference. It doesn't mention alternatives explicitly, so it's not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the burden falls on the description. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and 'published' gives a hint about visibility, but the description doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or how it handles unpublished facades. The parenthetical adds resource context but not behavioral disclosure.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and object, uses parentheses effectively for clarification, and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place—there's no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't describe the return payload, doesn't state whether authentication is required, and leaves 'published' as a loose qualifier. Agents might still know how to call it correctly but would need to guess at response 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?

The schema covers the 'handle' parameter at 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the handle is the same as the one in the '/b/{id}' route. This gives the agent a concrete reference beyond the schema's terse 'Public ID / facade handle', demonstrating meaningful enrichment.

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 'Fetch a published business facade' and clarifies the ambiguous term 'facade' with parenthetical examples (menu/services, hours, booking capabilities), then ties it to a known route '/b/{id}'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_agent or get_merged_profile, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies it's for fetching by handle, but it never says 'use this when you need a business facade by handle' or mentions any alternatives or exclusions. Given the array of sibling tools, this is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 describes a read-only 'Fetch' operation with no side effects mentioned. The phrase 'external enrichment' hints at external API calls but does not detail them. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any potential side effects, but the read-only nature is sufficiently clear. A note on external dependencies would improve transparency but is not critical.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes key added value (trust breakdown, recommendedUse). No fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the given complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description partly compensates by indicating that the result includes merged data, trust breakdown, and recommendedUse hints. It does not explain the effect of the locale parameter on the output, nor the full structure of the response. However, it gives enough context for an agent to set expectations. A bit more detail on locale's impact would make it more complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, but the descriptions are minimal: registryId is explained with an example, and locale only lists allowed values without stating its purpose (e.g., language of result). The tool description does not add any additional meaning. Baseline for full coverage is 3; the provided info is adequate but not enriching.

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 a specific action ('Fetch') on a well-defined resource ('official registry data merged with claimed Agent Card fields and external enrichment'), and also mentions the inclusion of trust breakdown and recommendedUse hints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_registry or get_agent, which likely return raw or single-source data.

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?

While not explicitly stating 'use this when...', the description implies this is the tool for combined/merged data with trust assessment. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the 'merged' and 'external enrichment' phrasing gives enough implicit guidance. A more explicit when-to-use vs. get_registry/get_agent would push it to 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 mentions that the tool returns 'provenance and verify links', which is useful behavioral info頸. However, it does not disclose aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error responses (e.g., if ID not found), or whether the call is read-only. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves some ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that packs the core purpose, input expectation, and output hint. It is concise with no redundancy, and the example IDs are front-loaded to clarify the required format.

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 simple get-by-ID operation, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, what input is needed, and what the output contains (provenance and verify links). It does not mention error handling or additional constraints, but for a read-only fetch, this is largely adequate. It could be improved by noting the 'official Hong Kong' scope and any region-specific behavior, but the core calling information is present.

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% with 'registryId' defined as a string. The description adds examples of valid formats ('fehd-3715038328, ehcp-12345'), which aids agents in constructing correct inputs. This goes beyond the schema and is helpful, though it does not elaborate on any optional parameters (there are none).

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 action ('Fetch one official Hong Kong registry record') and the resource ('registry record') identified by registryId. It distinguishes itself from search_registry which is presumably for searching rather than fetching a specific record. Examples of registry IDs concretely specify the input format.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when you have a specific registryId. It implicitly implies that search_registry is for when you don't, but it does not explicitly name that alternative or mention any exclusions. It is clear enough for a typical agent to infer the usage context, though not as explicit as naming siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the output contract (AgentCard fields) and implies a read-only search operation. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any filtering caveats, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and then supplies the key return fields. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably informative but not fully complete. It fails to clarify the meanings of sort and verificationLevel, and does not explain how this search differs from search_registry, which could matter for correct tool selection.

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 schema already documents 4 of 6 parameters (q, type, country, agentReady) with useful descriptions, leaving only sort and verificationLevel undocumented. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level clarifications, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap beyond the schema's own base coverage.

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-resource pair: 'Search Trusgent Trust Layer' for 'verified people and businesses', and specifies the return shape (AgentCard objects with profileUrl, jsonUrl, trustScore, verified). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_registry or get_registry, so the distinction is left to the agent.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_registry, get_agent, or verify_agent. The description only tells what it does, not when an agent should choose it over related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it 'Seerches' but does not mention whether it returns a list, pagination, fuzzy matching, or any constraints. It's a read operation but doesn't explicitly say that. Lacks transparency about side effects or limitations.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, no redundant wording. Everything provided is useful.

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 it's a search tool, it's clear enough what it does, but it lacks any mention of return format, result count, or edge cases. Since no output schema is provided, the description could have said it returns matching records. It's adequate but not complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema, but the description adds usage context: 'by name, address, license no, or registryId' clarifies how to use the q parameterhol, and 'Optional source filter' explains the source parameter's purpose. This aids the agent in constructing queries.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('registry records'), and specifies the fields that can be used (name, address, license no, registryId). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_registry (likely a direct lookup) and search_agents (searching agents, not registry).

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 indicates when to use this tool ('Search ... by name, address, license no, or registryId') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_registry or search_agents. There is no statement about when NOT to use it or how it differs from other search tools, but the field mentions give implicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does take on the job of clarifying this is an existence/visibility/level check rather than a data-fetch mutator. For a presumably read-only lookup, the description is reasonably transparent about what the caller should expect back. However, it does not comment on missing-ID handling, caching/staleness, or performance characteristics, any of which could be relevant for a 'verification' call — a 3 is fair given the simple, implicitly idempotent nature of the operation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with a colon that cleanly introduces the three-part answer. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition, and the output format is not repeated unnecessarily. Excellent example of minimalism without becoming uninformative.

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 lookup with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential inputs and the gist of the output. However, given that sibling tools overlap significantly (get_agent, get_merged_profile), the description would be more complete if it clarified the exact output shape (e.g., does it return a single string like 'public_verified' or a richer struct? Are there HTTP status codes for non-existent IDs?). These are gaps, but they feel minor for such a lightweight endpoint, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description's clarification that the lone 'trusgentId' parameter represents an 'Agent ID' is the only semantic meaning attached to the parameter, and it does add helpful context. It fits well with the description's mention of 'Agent ID' in the purpose. That said, it doesn't specify format, length, or example values, which the schema also omits — meaning a user still doesn't know what a valid trusgentId looks like (e.g., UUID vs. human-readable slug).

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 uses a clear verb ('lookup') and a specific resource (agent verification state), and concisely enumerates the three things it reports: existence, publicity, and verification level. It has a clear scope and does not confuse you with internal mechanics. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its six sibling tools, instead implying difference through the word 'Lightweight'.

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 no concrete guidance on when to invoke this tool over get_agent, get_registry, or search_agents; the adjective 'Lightweight' vaguely implies it is a cheaper/alternative lookup, but this is never made explicit. There are no stated exclusions or alternative-route instructions, leaving an agent to infer routing from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.