Create a new immutable Passport version from a declared fresh committed execution set; unchanged valid claims remain reusable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ||
| passport_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'unchanged valid claims remain reusable,' which is useful. However, the word 'Create' might ambiguously suggest a state change, though annotations indicate it is read-only. This is not a full contradiction.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action ('Create a new immutable Passport version') and adds only necessary qualifiers. It is concise, though the use of jargon like 'declared fresh committed execution set' reduces clarity.
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 has no output schema and three required parameters, the description should explain what the new version contains, how to construct the inputs, and what 'execution set' refers to. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 has three required parameters (country, passport_id, idempotency_key) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any of these parameters, nor does 'declared fresh committed execution set' map to any of them. The description fails to help an agent understand what values to provide.
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 clearly states a specific action: 'Create a new immutable Passport version' on a company passport. This distinguishes it from siblings like issue_company_passport and verify_passport. However, the term 'declared fresh committed execution set' is technical and may obscure the intended operation.
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 name and description imply this tool is for refreshing a passport by creating a new version, which gives some usage context. Yet there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'refresh' or 'issue_company_passport', nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.