Public no-charge UK tool for vendor.authorization.continue.v1 (AVAILABLE). Claims are limited to the named official sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about being public, no-charge, UK-scoped, and claims being limited to named official sources, which gives the agent some behavioral expectations. No contradiction with annotations, but it doesn't elaborate on how claims are limited or any caveats.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the public/no-charge/UK status and the API operation, then adds a constraint. Slight lack of plain-language clarity, but it is efficient.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description fails to state the core functionality in plain terms. A simple 0-parameter, read-only tool still needs a clear statement of what it does; the description only provides an API name and a limitation. This leaves the agent guessing the purpose, which is a substantial gap for a tool with no other documentation.
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 input schema has zero defined parameters and allows additional properties, but no parameter documentation is provided. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, so it does not detract. However, with additionalProperties true, a bit of guidance could have clarified what the tool accepts, but this is not required.
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 references 'vendor.authorization.continue.v1' which echoes the tool name in API format rather than explaining the tool's function in plain language. It fails to state what the tool actually does (e.g., 'continues a vendor authorization') and does not distinguish it from similar tools like 'continue_vendor' or 'run_uk_vendor_change_continuous_authorization'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes that it is 'public no-charge UK' and that claims are limited, but does not specify suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No mention of sibling tools or when to prefer this operation.
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.