UK Planning Applications MCP

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose key transactional behavior: it is paid, costs £0.49, returns a Stripe Checkout URL, and disables soft-offer outbound. However, it does not explain side effects, whether the pack is generated before or after checkout, auth requirements, or what happens next.

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 short and front-loads the pack identity, contents, and return value. Some phrases like 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' and 'apps + status_mix + risk_flags' are cryptic, but there is no unnecessary 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 payment/checkout tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing important lifecycle details: whether the summary pack is generated immediately, what the agent should do with the Stripe URL, and how it relates to redeem_pack. It gives the return type but not enough surrounding context.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for fully documented schemas is 3.

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 a specific paid LPA summary pack and lists its contents (apps + status_mix + risk_flags), then clarifies that it returns a Stripe Checkout URL. This is enough to distinguish it from a free planning pack, though the action is implied by 'Returns' rather than stated with a clear verb.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like planning_pack or redeem_pack. The mention of 'Paid' and 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' hints at context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the correct choice.

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 adds useful behavioral context by disclosing a 24h cache, a free-result limit, and that 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF,' but it does not clarify read-only status, rate limits, or return behavior.

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 short and front-loads the key scope and limit. The final sentence about 'Soft-Offer outbound' is concise but somewhat cryptic jargon, which slightly reduces clarity despite the efficient structure.

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 two-parameter discovery tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It does not describe the returned application fields, which would be more important because there is no output schema, but the core behavior is clear.

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 both parameters. The description only adds a small example ('e.g. Doncaster') for lpaOrPostcode and restates the free max for size, so it provides marginal additional meaning.

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 resource and scope: up to 5 UK planning applications for an LPA name or postcode. The phrase 'Free peek' and the five-result cap implicitly distinguish it from the sibling pack tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 implies use for quick free previews by saying 'Free peek' and capping results at 5, but it never states when to use this versus planning_pack, lpa_summary_pack, or redeem_pack. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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 does useful work by revealing the price (£0.49) and that the call produces a Stripe Checkout URL rather than the pack itself — that is real behavioral context. It omits what happens after payment, whether URL generation is idempotent or charges the user, and what 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' actually constrains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the return value — very little waste. The trailing 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' is cryptic enough that it does not clearly earn its place in an otherwise tight 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and covers the essentials: inputs, price, and return type. It leaves an agent guessing about post-payment flow (does redeem_pack then apply?), URL expiry, and any prerequisites, which matters for a paid mutation-style action.

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%, so both parameters (lpaOrPostcode, size with default 25/max 100) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the LPA/postcode input and adds no format, validation, or normalization detail beyond it, so 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 concrete resource ('planning applications pack') plus the concrete outcome ('Returns Stripe Checkout URL (£0.49)'), so an agent knows this is a payment-initiation tool, not a data tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like lpa_summary_pack or redeem_pack, which sound equally pack-related.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, even though lpa_summary_pack and redeem_pack sit right alongside it. The 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' clause is opaque jargon that gives the agent no actionable routing signal.

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 implies a state-changing redemption but says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the session was already redeemed or is unpaid, whether authentication/ownership of the session is required, or what the call produces (a pack entitlement? credits?). Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the parameter hint second. The only structural weakness is that the leading phrase "Instructions to redeem" reads like a doc pointer rather than a description of the operation.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), but for a redemption flow the missing outcome information matters: what the agent gets back, whether the pack becomes usable by the sibling pack tools, and what failure modes exist. With no annotations and no output schema to fall back on, the description leaves an agent guessing at the result of a write operation.

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% and the schema already documents session_id as a Stripe Checkout id in cs_... form. The description adds only that the value comes "from checkout", a marginal sourcing hint beyond the schema. 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 names a specific resource (a paid Stripe Checkout session) but the framing "Instructions to redeem..." is ambiguous about whether the tool performs the redemption or merely returns instructions for doing so. It also gives no hint of how this relates to the sibling 'pack' tools (tenders_pack, tender_score_pack), which an agent would reasonably wonder about given the shared naming.

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?

"Pass session_id from checkout" is the only usage cue and it addresses argument sourcing, not when to call the tool. There is no guidance on preconditions (session must be paid, not already redeemed) or on when an agent should prefer or avoid this tool relative to its siblings.

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