Public no-charge UK tool for gb.tax_registration.verify.v1 (SOURCE_CONDITIONED). Claims are limited to the named official sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the tool is free, public, UK-specific, and 'SOURCE_CONDITIONED' with claims limited to named official sources. This explains the tool's constraints without contradicting the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. It does not detail failure modes or source behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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, concise sentence that front-loads key facts: public, no-charge, UK scope. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 zero-parameter schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It clarifies source conditioning and official-source limitations, which are important for trust. It lacks explicit instructions on input handling, but the simplicity of the tool and output schema compensate. It could be more complete with an explicit 'when to use' statement, but overall it is adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters in the schema, and the description adds no parameter details. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools. The schema allows additionalProperties, so input might be passed via context or arbitrary fields, but with no explicit parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 tool name clearly indicates verification of UK tax registration, and the description references the specific operation 'gb.tax_registration.verify.v1'. This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_uk_company_status or verify_uk_business_licence. However, the description doesn't restate the purpose in plain language, relying on the name and version string.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other verification tools. It states it is 'Public no-charge UK tool' but does not mention when to prefer it over siblings or exclusions. The context of UK tax registration is implicit from the name, but the description lacks direct usage direction.
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.