Global RunOnProof tool. Choose country from BR, GB, US; 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, implying a safe, read-like operation. The description adds that US tools are 'FEDERAL_ONLY and never assert state good standing or the OFAC 50 Percent Rule', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain the 'RunOnProof' concept, rate limits, latency, or whether the tool returns structured results or raw data. The contradiction comment is false—no annotation contradiction found.
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 two sentences and relatively brief, but the first sentence is opaque ('Global RunOnProof tool') and wastes space. It could be restructured to front-load the core purpose and add specific parameter context without becoming verbose.
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 zero schema description coverage, no output schema, a complex oneOf schema, and a large sibling set with overlapping tools (e.g., verify_uk_invoice_and_payee), the description is seriously incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, how to interpret the three distinct country-specific parameter sets, or how to handle errors. The description fails to equip an agent to use this tool correctly across all supported countries.
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 does not explain any parameters beyond mentioning country choices. The oneOf branches are complex (e.g., BR requires cnpj, GB requires company_number, US requires policy_id and schema_version), yet the description offers no parameter guidance. For a tool with deeply nested required fields, this is inadequate.
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 starts with 'Global RunOnProof tool' which is cryptic and does not clearly state the tool's verb (verify) or resource (invoice payee). It mentions country coverage but fails to define the core purpose—verifying that a payee matches an invoice. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like verify_uk_invoice_and_payee, which overlaps significantly for the GB variant.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, workflow position, exclusion criteria, or country-specific routing logic despite the complex oneOf schema. The mention of 'Global RunOnProof tool' is unhelpful jargon, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
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.