Fetch a specific ANSPDCP decision by reference number (e.g., ANSPDCP-2022-015) for direct access to the official ruling text.
Get a specific ANSPDCP decision by reference number (e.g., 'ANSPDCP-2019-001', 'ANSPDCP-2022-015').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | ANSPDCP decision reference (e.g., 'ANSPDCP-2019-001', 'ANSPDCP-2022-015') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently indicates a read-style retrieval operation and scopes it to exact reference lookup. It does not discuss not-found behavior or response shape, but for a simple single-parameter getter this is reasonably transparent.
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, tightly worded sentence that starts with the action and resource, then immediately gives the required identifier format with examples. Every element earns its place and there is no extraneous information.
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?
For a one-parameter retrieval tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly. It names the exact input needed and provides realistic reference formats. No additional context is necessary.
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 100%, and the description itself mirrors the schema's parameter documentation. It adds example values, but those examples already appear in the schema description. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific ANSPDCP decision'), and the identifying mechanism ('by reference number'). It also gives concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like ro_dp_search_decisions, which is about finding decisions rather than retrieving a known one.
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 phrase 'Get a specific ... by reference number' clearly conveys that this tool is for when a known decision reference is available. It implicitly contrasts with search, but it does not explicitly say 'use ro_dp_search_decisions when you don't have a reference,' so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.