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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that this is a non-destructive operation (RunOnProof) and adds behavioral context about the US federal limitation. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not fully explain what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., it does not say it returns an authorization result). The country-specific behavioral notes are helpful.
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—only two sentences—but it is dense with important information (countries, response preservation, US federal limitation). It is front-loaded with 'Global RunOnProof tool' which is effective. However, it could be restructured to be more scannable, and the second sentence about US tools could be clearer. It earns its place but is not polished.
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's complexity (three distinct country schemas with many nested objects), the description is woefully incomplete. There is no explanation of what 'RunOnProof' means, no guidance on how to select the correct schema variant, no description of return values (no output schema), and no mention of idempotency or the many required parameters. The description adds very little beyond what is in the schema.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. The description does not detail any of the numerous parameters (e.g., idempotency_key, payee, supplier, etc.), which is a significant gap. However, the schema itself provides rich structure with nested objects and constraints, so the description adds no value beyond stating country choice. This is a major missed opportunity.
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 starts with 'Global RunOnProof tool' which gives a high-level purpose, then explicitly lists supported countries (BR, GB, US) and mentions that the response preserves country-specific details. However, it does not clearly state that this tool authorizes payments; the name 'authorize_payment' implies it, but the description focuses on response properties rather than the action itself. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authorize_uk_business_payment' by being multi-country.
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 indicates to choose a country from the three listed, which provides some guidance on when to use this tool (for BR, GB, or US payments). It also includes a caution about US federal tools being FEDERAL_ONLY and not asserting state good standing, which is an important when-not note. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like 'authorize_uk_business_payment', and does not mention alternatives for other countries.
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.