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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response preserves country-specific coverage, sources, freshness, and limitations, and clarifies that US federal tools are FEDERAL_ONLY and never assert state good standing or OFAC rules. This adds moderate behavioral context beyond 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 two sentences and fairly short, but the first sentence uses unexplained jargon ('RunOnProof') and the second sentence is specific to US limitations. It is concise but not effectively front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 high complexity (multi-country oneOf schema, no output schema, many siblings), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters differ by country, or how it relates to similarly named siblings. The agent cannot properly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the many nested parameters. The only parameter mentioned is 'country'. For a complex schema with oneOf shapes and dozens of fields, this is a critical gap. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw JSON structure.
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', which is jargon and does not clearly state the action or resource. It mentions country selection and response characteristics but fails to define what 'continue_vendor' actually does. The sibling 'continue_vendor_authorization' has a more explicit name, creating confusion.
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 the user to choose a country from BR, GB, US and notes US federal tool limitations, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., approve_supplier, continue_vendor_authorization). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
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.