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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about preserving country-specific coverage, sources, freshness, and limitations, plus a warning about US federal scope. This goes beyond annotations but isn't very rich.
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?
Two sentences, concise and without fluff. However, the first sentence is cryptic ('Global RunOnProof tool') and fails to clearly communicate the tool's purpose within that brevity.
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?
The tool has a complex conditional input schema and no output schema. The description doesn't explain per-country requirements, idempotency_key usage, or what the response contains beyond vague coverage/freshness. This is inadequate for reliable invocation.
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 gives zero parameter guidance. The schema uses a complex oneOf structure with different required fields for BR vs GB, and the description only says 'Choose country from BR, GB'. This is a major gap requiring the agent to reverse-engineer the schema.
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 name suggests resolving legal entities, but the description only says 'Global RunOnProof tool' without defining the action. It lists supported countries but not the resource type or what 'resolve' means. It also doesn't differentiate from sibling 'resolve_uk_legal_entity'.
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?
Tells the agent to choose country from BR or GB, and notes US federal tools are separate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention the UK-specific sibling tool.
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.