Returns what Curagent supports: every analyzed US jurisdiction with its maturity, which document types, and how analysis is priced. Curagent runs its full analysis for properties in all 50 states and DC using each state's own terminology; jurisdictions at production maturity also include hand-verified statute citations in cure guidance. No API key is needed for this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the call needs no API key, covers all 50 states plus DC, uses each state's own terminology, and that production-maturity jurisdictions include hand-verified statute citations — material for interpreting the result.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned content before maturity and auth details. Some phrasing ('using each state's own terminology') leans promotional, but every sentence carries information an agent could act on, so size is appropriate.
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 exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so reasonably: covered jurisdictions, maturity levels, supported document types and pricing. A finer picture of the response shape is missing, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is absent.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, fetch-everything call, and there is nothing parameter-related left to clarify.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns what Curagent supports,' then enumerates the exact payload (jurisdictions, maturity, document types, pricing). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools analyze_title_documents and get_credit_balance, so an agent can route without opening any schema.
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: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/discovery call, but the description never explicitly says when to call it or when not to. It names no alternatives and gives no conditions beyond the note that no API key is needed, which is helpful but is not when-to-use guidance.
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.
