mhra_snapshotHow big the UK register currently is and how to walk all of it: total document count, the count per document type, the newest document date, and the paging recipe for a full enumeration. MHRA publishes no bulk download, so this returns the enumeration path rather than a file URL — and it returns those counts, never the documents themselves.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns counts only, never document contents, and describes the enumeration path rather than a bulk-download file URL. This meaningfully clarifies what the tool will and will not do.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause immediately states what the tool is about. Every sentence adds distinct value—scope, contents, and the critical no-bulk-download caveat—with no filler or repetition.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description still covers the core return values: total count, per-type counts, newest date, and the paging recipe. It also addresses the key environmental constraint (no bulk download) and clarifies that documents themselves are not returned. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the 100% schema coverage is vacuous and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output semantics instead of parameters, which is sufficient here.
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 purpose: reporting how big the UK MHRA register is (total count, per-type counts, newest date) and how to enumerate it fully. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like mhra_search and mhra_product by explicitly saying it returns counts and enumeration guidance, never the documents themselves.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the overall register size or a full walk of all documents. It also explains the constraint that MHRA has no bulk download, so the tool provides an enumeration path rather than a file URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives for searching specific documents, but the usage intent is clear.
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.