Access every Article 25 record, including agreements, parties and roles, triggers, and 25(2) items. Read-only retrieval for compliance oversight.
Every Art. 25 record: the agreement, the parties and roles, the trigger, the 25(2) items. 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?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose return format, pagination, filtering, or whether the register reflects current or historical state.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. The resource scope is front-loaded, the content list is compact, and the read-only trait is stated at the end. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read-only register, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource and the data categories. It is incomplete in that it does not describe the output shape or whether the register is filterable, but the zero-parameter schema and read-only nature lower the bar.
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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description's content summary compensates for the absence of an output schema by telling the agent what data will be present.
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 resource ('Every Art. 25 record') and enumerates the content dimensions (agreement, parties/roles, trigger, 25(2) items), which clearly identifies what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it from the many register/report siblings.
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 is a read-only lookup for Article 25 records, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like record_responsibilities, responsibilities_register's likely write counterpart, or other registers such as risk_register/literacy_register.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.