Global RunOnProof tool. Choose country from BR, GB, US; the response preserves country-specific coverage, sources, freshness and limitations. US federal tools are FEDERAL_ONLY and never assert state good standing or the OFAC 50 Percent Rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description contradicts this by describing a 'Global RunOnProof tool' that 'preserves country-specific coverage, sources, freshness and limitations' - this sounds like a read operation, not a mutation. However, 'approve_supplier' as a name implies a write/approval action. The description is vague and doesn't clarify the tool's behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.
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 very short (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the key country constraint. However, it's too terse given the tool's complexity (3 oneOf branches, many parameters). It could be more informative while still being concise.
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 complex input schema with 3 country-specific branches and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It doesn't explain the oneOf structure, what each country case requires, what the response contains, or how to choose between branches. The sheer number of sibling tools (30+) makes this lack of guidance even more harmful.
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 must compensate. It mentions countries (BR, GB, US) and that US tools are FEDERAL_ONLY, but barely explains the complex oneOf schema. The description adds almost no meaning to the parameters - it doesn't explain what cnpj, company_number, supplier, payee, policy details mean or how they relate to the tool's purpose.
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 says 'Global RunOnProof tool' and lists supported countries, but it doesn't explicitly state what it does with a specific verb and resource. The name 'approve_supplier' implies supplier approval, but the description is too abstract about 'preserving coverage, sources, freshness and limitations.' It doesn't clearly distinguish this from siblings like 'approve_uk_supplier' or 'run_uk_supplier_approval'.
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 tells which countries are supported (BR, GB, US) and mentions US federal tools are FEDERAL_ONLY, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs siblings like 'approve_uk_supplier' or 'run_uk_supplier_approval'. There's no guidance on when not to use this tool or what prerequisites exist.
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.
Multiple tools appear to address the same action with only country or payment-model differences, such as company_check/run_uk_company_check, approve_supplier/approve_uk_supplier, authorize_payment/run_uk_payment_authorization, and screen_restricted_party/screen_restricted_business_party. Even with descriptions, an agent will struggle to pick the intended tool reliably.
Naming mixes bare global verbs (company_check, approve_supplier, authorize_payment) with UK-prefixed variants (run_uk_company_check, approve_uk_supplier, authorize_uk_business_payment), plus free-form names like counterfactual, preflight, quote, and capabilities. There is no single consistent verb_noun or country-modifier convention across the set.
46 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface, and the set carries heavy duplication through global/UK/free/paid variants. While the domain may justify multiple country-specific operations, the tool count itself will overwhelm agents and make selection harder.
The server covers the main compliance lifecycle well: discovery (capabilities, preflight, quote, resolve_agent_intent), verification, supplier approval, payment authorization, invoice matching, passport issuance/refresh, and verification receipts. Minor gaps exist around explicit cancellation/revocation or list/search operations, but core workflows have no major dead ends.