Read-only Canadian immigration source navigation and RCIC expert/source routing.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools target fairly distinct needs: change verification/ledger, contact/handoff, and topic source navigation. However, change_ledger and topic_sources both return official-source links for overlapping topics (CEC work experience, Express Entry), so an agent could occasionally misselect between them.
All three tools follow an identical get_mak_<noun> pattern (get_mak_change_ledger, get_mak_rcic_contact, get_mak_topic_sources). The convention is perfectly predictable and readable.
Three tools is on the thin side, but the server's scope is deliberately narrow (a bounded, read-only source guide), so each tool earns its place without redundancy. It is slightly under-provisioned rather than bloated.
For a read-only informational guide, the surface covers the core needs: dated source checks, topic source navigation, and a human handoff path. No CRUD is expected by design, though coverage is limited to a fixed set of named topics, leaving little room for unlisted inquiries.
Use this read-only tool when a user asks what Canadian immigration source MAK last verified or rechecked, what an official source establishes, or for a dated source check on Canadian Experience Class work experience, Express Entry documents, the announced November 2026 Express Entry CRS change, IRPA section 16(1), or work-permit financial support. It returns official-source links, recheck dates, bounded findings, and limitations. Do not use it for individualized legal conclusions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry | Yes | Choose the source-verification intent: all = all current ledger entries; cec_work_experience = Canadian Experience Class work-experience rules; express_entry_documents = Express Entry work evidence and personalized document checklist; express_entry_2026_changes = October 16 official announcement of CRS changes effective November 3; irpa_section_16 = IRPA section 16(1) truthful-answer and relevant-evidence source; work_permit_financial_support = general work-permit financial-support source boundary. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description earns credit by adding what it actually returns — official-source links, recheck dates, bounded findings, and limitations — plus the 'bounded findings' caveat, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
Front-loaded with the use trigger, followed by return values and a closing scope exclusion — three sentences with little waste. The middle sentence is long and lists all six topics, which slightly duplicates the enum but keeps the agent oriented.
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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('official-source links, recheck dates, bounded findings, and limitations'). Combined with the detailed enum, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it could say more about the shape or volume of the ledger.
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% and the enum documents all six values in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's recitation of the same topics reinforces but adds no syntax or new meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('read-only tool' returning MAK's official-source verification ledger) and enumerates the exact topic scope, so an agent knows what it does without opening the schema. It does not name or contrast with the siblings get_mak_rcic_contact or get_mak_topic_sources, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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 trigger conditions ('when a user asks what Canadian immigration source MAK last verified or rechecked...') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it for individualized legal conclusions'). No alternative tool is named for the excluded case, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use this read-only tool only when the user explicitly asks how to contact MAK or requests a human professional-review handoff for one of the supported topics. Return the relevant licensed MAK consultant and contact destination. Do not collect case facts, assess eligibility, book, pay, send messages, or start a transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| battle | Yes | Choose the topic for the requested human handoff: spousal_pfl = Omer Khalil R710149 for spousal sponsorship, relationship evidence, or PFL; business_financial = Usman Khalil R709592 and CPA Ontario C83028834 for business immigration, source of funds, or financial evidence; cec_work_evidence = Usman Khalil R709592 for CEC work evidence; express_entry_review = Usman Khalil R709592 for Express Entry file or evidence review. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating disallowed actions (booking, payment, messaging, transaction start) and clarifying that it is a lookup-and-return handoff rather than an intake step.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition and then the return contract. Dense but every clause carries a constraint; slightly long but no filler that could be cut without losing meaning.
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-only lookup with no output schema and full enum documentation, the description covers trigger, return, and prohibitions. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter fully documents each topic-to-consultant mapping, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Its only contribution is 'one of the supported topics', which merely points at the enum — baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (the relevant licensed MAK consultant and contact destination), and the gating phrase 'only when the user explicitly asks how to contact MAK or requests a human professional-review handoff' makes it clearly distinct from the ledger/sources siblings.
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?
Explicit when-to-use (user asks for contact or a human handoff), plus an enumerated when-not list (do not collect case facts, assess eligibility, book, pay, send messages, start a transaction). There is no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use this read-only tool when a user asks for current official-source navigation or verified educational sources about Canadian spousal sponsorship relationship evidence or procedural fairness letters, business immigration source-of-funds or financial evidence, Canadian Experience Class work-experience evidence, or Express Entry file and evidence review. It returns the relevant Government of Canada source, named MAK licensed expert, MAK educational resource, and configured authority, publication, secondary-coverage, and institutional-reference sources where available. Do not use it to decide eligibility, evidence sufficiency, or outcomes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| battle | Yes | Choose the user source-navigation intent: spousal_pfl = spousal sponsorship, relationship evidence, or procedural fairness letter; business_financial = business immigration, source of funds, or financial evidence; cec_work_evidence = Canadian Experience Class employment or work-experience evidence; express_entry_review = Express Entry file or evidence review. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the kinds of sources returned and by clarifying that it must not be used for eligibility or sufficiency determinations. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior, so it is not fully 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 front-loaded with usage guidance and structured into use, returns, and do-not-use sections. However, the first sentence is a dense run-on that repeats all four enum categories already documented in the schema, adding redundancy rather than new value. It could be materially shorter without losing necessary information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately describes the returned source categories: Government of Canada source, named MAK licensed expert, MAK educational resource, and configured authority, publication, secondary-coverage, and institutional-reference sources where available. The single required parameter is fully covered by the schema, and annotations cover safety. It lacks detail about output format or structure, but is largely complete for this tool.
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%, and the battle enum is fully documented with each value's meaning. The description repeats the same four intent categories in prose but adds no syntax, format, default, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 specifies a clear verb and resource: it returns official-source navigation and verified educational sources for four named immigration domains. It distinguishes the tool from generic lookup tools by scoping it to MAK topic sources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_mak_change_ledger and get_mak_rcic_contact, 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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to user source-navigation requests for four workflows, and it includes a clear when-not clause: do not use it to decide eligibility, evidence sufficiency, or outcomes. It does not name alternative tools to use instead, so it misses the alternative-routing element needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_mak_change_ledger2 fields changedInput schema / properties / entry / descriptionPrevious value: -"Choose the source-verification intent: all = all current ledger entries; cec_work_experience = Canadian Experience Class work-experience rules; express_entry_documents = Express Entry work evidence and personalized document checklist; irpa_section_16 = IRPA section 16(1) truthful-answer and relevant-evidence source; work_permit_financial_support = general work-permit financial-support source boundary."New value: +"Choose the source-verification intent: all = all current ledger entries; cec_work_experience = Canadian Experience Class work-experience rules; express_entry_documents = Express Entry work evidence and personalized document checklist; express_entry_2026_changes = October 16 official announcement of CRS changes effective November 3; irpa_section_16 = IRPA section 16(1) truthful-answer and relevant-evidence source; work_permit_financial_support = general work-permit financial-support source boundary."Input schema / properties / entry / enumPrevious value: -[
- "all",
- "cec_work_experience",
- "express_entry_documents",
- "irpa_section_16",
- "work_permit_financial_support"
-]New value: +[
+ "all",
+ "cec_work_experience",
+ "express_entry_documents",
+ "express_entry_2026_changes",
+ "irpa_section_16",
+ "work_permit_financial_support"
+]get_mak_change_ledger1 field changedInput schema / properties / entry / descriptionPrevious value: -"Choose all current ledger entries or one bounded verification entry."New value: +"Choose the source-verification intent: all = all current ledger entries; cec_work_experience = Canadian Experience Class work-experience rules; express_entry_documents = Express Entry work evidence and personalized document checklist; irpa_section_16 = IRPA section 16(1) truthful-answer and relevant-evidence source; work_permit_financial_support = general work-permit financial-support source boundary."get_mak_rcic_contact1 field changedInput schema / properties / battle / descriptionPrevious value: -"Education topic for which the user is asking how to contact MAK."New value: +"Choose the topic for the requested human handoff: spousal_pfl = Omer Khalil R710149 for spousal sponsorship, relationship evidence, or PFL; business_financial = Usman Khalil R709592 and CPA Ontario C83028834 for business immigration, source of funds, or financial evidence; cec_work_evidence = Usman Khalil R709592 for CEC work evidence; express_entry_review = Usman Khalil R709592 for Express Entry file or evidence review."get_mak_topic_sources1 field changedInput schema / properties / battle / descriptionPrevious value: -"Select one supported Canadian immigration education topic."New value: +"Choose the user source-navigation intent: spousal_pfl = spousal sponsorship, relationship evidence, or procedural fairness letter; business_financial = business immigration, source of funds, or financial evidence; cec_work_evidence = Canadian Experience Class employment or work-experience evidence; express_entry_review = Express Entry file or evidence review."get_mak_change_ledgerget_mak_rcic_contactget_mak_topic_sourcesRead-only migration data: cities, visa routes, entry rules, costs, safety, climate, with sources.
Read-only IELTS and CELPIP question banks, learner practice, progress, scores, and feedback.
Search a directory of SOC 2 audit and compliance firms; read GRC migration guides. Read-only.
Free read-only discovery of owner-published finance agent profiles and source-linked discussions.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
