UK Insolvency Alerts MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the paid/subscriber gating ('PRO', corroborated by the access_token param) and the time-window scoping. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, radius defaults, or rate/pagination behavior, leaving real gaps for a mutation-free but commercially gated data tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the use cases. The terse 'PRO.' prefix is efficient, though the parenthetical field list and audience list make it slightly overloaded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should be more complete. It covers what is returned conceptually and the postcode/days dimensions, but omits limit behavior, defaults, response shape, and how results differ from sibling insolvency tools.

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 only 20% (only access_token documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain days ('last N days'), postcode ('near a UK postcode'), and implicitly radius, but 'limit' and the radius unit/default are never addressed, so coverage remains partial.

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?

Names a specific resource (corporate insolvency notices: liquidations, administrations, winding-up orders) with an explicit geographic and temporal scope, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like new_petitions or insolvency_check, which likely overlap on insolvency events.

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 lead-gen audience list (asset buyers, insolvency practitioners, recruiters, landlords) implies a prospecting use case, which is helpful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus new_petitions/insolvency_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit 'PRO' tier marker.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses completeness ('all notices'), ordering ('oldest to newest'), and a PRO/subscriber gate, but it does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens for companies with no notices.

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 compact sentence with the key scope, completeness, and ordering front-loaded. 'PRO.' is terse but does not distract from the core definition.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It covers scope and ordering, yet leaves auth behavior and the nature of the returned notices to inference from the schema.

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 50%, with access_token documented in the schema but company left undocumented. The description clarifies that company identifies a single company and that results are a timeline, but it adds no format or identifier guidance beyond that.

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 resource and scope: full insolvency notice timeline for one company, with ordering (oldest to newest). It is clear what the tool returns, although it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as insolvency_check or new_petitions.

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 phrase 'full ... timeline' implies this is for historical completeness rather than a quick check, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. It does not say when to choose this over insolvency_check or new_petitions.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ('FREE'), geographic scope (UK only), the result cap ('Top 3 notices'), and implicitly a read-only lookup. It does not say what happens when no notices are found, how fresh the data is, or what a notice record contains.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the value proposition ('FREE') and the core question, then the coverage details and result cap. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and result volume adequately. It leaves the empty-result behavior and notice structure unexplained, which are minor but real 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'Company name or number, e.g. 11877818'. The description repeats the same 'name or company number' fact without adding format or matching nuance (e.g. fuzzy name matching vs exact number).

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (UK company against Gazette insolvency notices), and enumerates the notice types covered (winding-up petitions, liquidation, administration). It also bounds the result ('Top 3 notices'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like new_petitions or watchlist_check, which keeps it from 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?

The phrasing 'Has this UK company ... appeared in Gazette insolvency notices' frames the use case as a quick binary due-diligence lookup and 'Top 3' signals triage rather than exhaustive search. However, no alternatives (new_petitions, company_history, area_distress) are named and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites, so usage must be inferred.

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. It discloses the default window (7 days), that results are recent-only, and that postcode/radius are optional — useful scope framing. It says nothing about return volume, pagination behavior of `limit`, or how PRO access/rate limits affect results beyond the 'PRO.' prefix.

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?

Three clauses, zero waste, and the core resource plus its plain-English gloss come first. The parenthetical definition and the geographic filter tail are each front-loaded where an agent needs them.

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?

placeholder

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate and partly does: it defines `days` (default 7) and frames `postcode` + `radius_miles` as an optional geographic filter. `limit` is documented in neither place, and the default value for `radius_miles` or units nuance remain unstated.

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 resource — new winding-up petitions — and defines the jargon inline (creditors suing to wind up a company) plus the time window, so an agent can tell this apart from a general insolvency check. It never names a sibling, so differentiation must be inferred from the other tool names.

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 phrase 'early warning before a customer or supplier collapses' implies the monitoring use case, and the default of 7 days sets a reasonable starting point. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over insolvency_check, area_distress, or watchlist_check, and no exclusions.

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 behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, what happens to unmatched names or partial matches, whether results are paginated or truncated at 50, or what authentication is required (the access_token parameter is only documented in the schema). It does disclose the batch cap and the notice type, which is real value.

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 efficient sentence with the batch scope front-loaded after the 'PRO' tier marker. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse but informative; nothing else is wasted.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and batch limits but omits return-value shape, matching behavior, and authentication context. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate the response or failure modes.

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 67%, and the description usefully extends beyond the schema: it clarifies that `companies` accepts either names or company numbers and enforces the 50-item limit, and restates the `days` recency semantics. The `access_token` parameter is left entirely to its schema description, so not fully complete.

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 (Check), resource (customers/suppliers for insolvency notices) and a distinctive batch scope (up to 50 at once). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling `insolvency_check` it presumably differs from, leaving the single-vs-batch distinction to be inferred from the '50 at once' phrasing.

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 only implied: 'at once' and 'up to 50' signal this is the bulk variant, and 'optionally only in the last N days' hints at recency filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use vs `insolvency_check` guidance, no statement about what to do for a single company, and no prerequisites beyond the embedded 'PRO' marker.

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