Global RunOnProof tool. Choose country from BR, GB; 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context about the response — country-specific coverage, sources, freshness and limitations — and the FEDERAL_ONLY contrast sets expectations about what US federal tools do not assert. But it does not disclose the divergent BR vs GB input behavior or the response shape of rewards in any detail, so transparency is partial.
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 text is compact and the country-picker/response-preservation sentence is reasonably front-loaded. Structurally it puts the branded 'Global RunOnProof tool' placeholder first, which wastes the opening slot on jargon, and the US federal sentence describes other tools rather than this one. Every line has some intent, but the early keyword placement is not optimal.
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 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and a large sibling set (verify_company_passport, refresh_company_passport, build_uk_company_capability_passport, run_uk_company_check, etc.), the description is incomplete. It points at the right country dimension and output qualities, but it never explains the BR/GB asymmetry reflected in the oneOf schema, never justifies the BR-only idempotency_key/execution_ids, and never distinguishes this from the many verity/refresh alternatives. The annotations in the schema carry most of the input structure, but the description does not fill the behavioral and navigational gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning to the country parameter — choosing BR or GB changes the country-specific response. It entirely omits the meaning of cnpj, execution_ids, and idempotency_key required in the BR branch, leaving the agent without semantic grounding for those genuinely opaque fields. Minimal compensation for the overall gap.
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 opens with 'Global RunOnProof tool,' which is branded jargon rather than a statement of what the operation accomplishes; an agent unfamiliar with 'RunOnProof' learns nothing concrete from that phrase. The rest hints at the outcome — pick BR or GB and get country-specific coverage, sources, freshness and limitations — but never defines what 'issuing a company passport' means versus verifying, refreshing, or building one. The verb and resource only appear in the tool name itself.
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?
'Choose country from BR, GB' gives an explicit parameter-selection rule, and the US federal note supplies an implicit when-not (US federal-only queries with state good standing / OFAC 50 Percent Rule assertions). However, no sibling alternative is named and no explicit condition such as 'use verify_company_passport to confirm existing status' or 'freshness/refresh to update' is provided. An agent must infer applicability from context rather than being routed.
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.