RunOnProof

run_uk_supplier_approval

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid x402 UK tool for gb.solution.supplier_approval.v1 (AVAILABLE). Claims are limited to the named official sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payee`	No
`policy_id`	Yes	Declared onboarding policy, normally GB_NEW_SUPPLIER_V1.
`vat_number`	No
`eori_number`	No
`company_number`	Yes	Companies House company number, including any two-letter prefix when applicable.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-generated key. Send the identical value in the Idempotency-Key header.
`sanctions_subject_names`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`policy`	Yes
`result`	Yes	Offer-specific facts and machine-action inputs; interpret with decision, coverage and limitations.
`payment`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes	Country, population and explicit coverage limitations.
`decision`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Source-scoped evidence references; absence is never a clean finding.
`replayed`	No
`conditions`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`delivery_id`	No
`limitations`	Yes
`valid_as_of`	Yes
`valid_until`	Yes
`execution_id`	No
`reason_codes`	Yes
`authorization`	Yes
`source_health`	Yes
`machine_action`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`economic_activity`	Yes
`product_or_solution`	Yes
`required_information`	Yes

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 it is a 'Paid x402' tool and that 'Claims are limited to the named official sources,' providing some extra context about cost and claim constraints. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but not effectively concise. The first sentence is a label-like phrase, and the second is an unexplained constraint. Each sentence is vague and under-informative, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than well-structured completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a 7-parameter tool with a nested object and an output schema, this description is far too sparse. It omits core semantics, usage context, and parameter rationale, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description adds no parameter information. It fails to clarify the meaning of company_number, policy_id, idempotency_key, or the nested payee object, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill required inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a UK tool and solution version but lacks a specific verb or outcome. It essentially restates the tool name ('run_uk_supplier_approval' vs. 'gb.solution.supplier_approval.v1') without distinguishing it from many sibling tools like approve_uk_supplier or verify_uk_supplier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the 40+ sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RunOnProof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?