organisationsList GOV.UK government organisations (departments, agencies, etc.) with title, URL path, acronym, and operational state, paginated via start and count (default 20, max 100 per page).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "count": 50,
+ "start": 0
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of organisations from GOV.UK filtered search",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds pagination behavior (default 20, max 100) and specifies returned fields, which provides useful 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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key details without unnecessary 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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what fields are returned, and pagination. It is complete for a list endpoint with two optional parameters.
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 compensates by explaining count and start as pagination parameters with default and max values. However, it does not specify the default for start (likely 0) and does not describe the parameters in the schema properties. Partial 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (GOV.UK government organisations), and specifies the fields returned (title, URL path, acronym, operational state). It also includes pagination details, which distinguishes it from other tools like search or content.
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 usage for listing organisations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or content. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.