Retrieve every Article 28 processing role declaration and see which one is current. Read-only access supports GDPR compliance checks without altering data.
Every Art. 28 role declaration, with the current one named. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and adds the behavior that the current role is named among all declarations. It does not describe output format or ordering, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient.
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, compact sentence with no filler. Every element earns its place: the scope of declarations, the 'current one named' distinction, and the safety signal 'Read-only.'
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 simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is nearly complete. It conveys what is returned and the read-only nature, though it relies on the reader knowing what an 'Art. 28 role declaration' is and does not mention the write sibling.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the schema already documents an empty properties object.
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 the resource ('Every Art. 28 role declaration') and a distinguishing behavior ('with the current one named'), making it clear this is a read/list operation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the meaning is still unambiguous and distinct from the sibling 'record_processing_role.'
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the write counterpart 'record_processing_role' or any other sibling, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.