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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the response preserving 'country-specific coverage, sources, freshness and limitations,' which is useful. However, the 'US federal tools' statement is tangential and could confuse the agent about this tool's own limitations. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, but the second sentence about US federal tools is tangential and not directly relevant to this tool's operation. The front-loading is okay but not efficient; it does not clearly introduce the tool's purpose.
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 oneOf schema with two country-specific variants, yet the description fails to explain the required parameters (cnpj vs. company_number) or the idempotency_key requirement. It mentions response characteristics but does not describe the return format or coverage details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters such as cnpj, company_number, or idempotency_key. It only says 'Choose country from BR, GB,' leaving the agent to infer the required identifiers from the schema's oneOf branches. The description adds no value beyond what the schema constrains.
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 identifies this as a 'Global RunOnProof tool' and lists countries BR and GB, but it does not explicitly state that it verifies company status; the verb 'verify' is only implied by the tool name. It distinguishes itself from US federal tools but is vague about its core function.
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 description implies this tool should be used for BR or GB, and contrasts with US federal tools ('never assert state good standing'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling verify_uk_company_status or other verification tools, and provides no clear exclusions.
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.