Retrieve the complete publication history for a Swiss public tender, including corrections and awards, by providing the publication ID and optional lot ID.
Get the publication history for a project (corrections, awards, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lotId | No | Lot ID (optional, to filter by lot) | |
| publicationId | Yes | Current publication ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' and hints at content (corrections, awards), but it does not disclose the return format, pagination, ordering, or the relationship between project, publication, and lot. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is concise without being tautological, though it is brief enough that it risks bordering on under-specification for the reader.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral documentation. It does not explain the project/publication/lot relationship, does not hint at the return structure beyond 'corrections, awards, etc.', and leaves an agent uncertain about parameter expectations and response handling.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-documented in the schema (publicationId as current publication ID, lotId as optional filter), so the baseline is 3. But the description introduces the term 'project' which does not map to the schema's publicationId/lotId parameters, potentially confusing an agent about what to pass. It adds no value beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the publication history') and gives content examples (corrections, awards), which distinguishes it from the sibling search/browse/lookup tools for codes, institutions, and tenders. However, a terminology mismatch exists — the description says 'for a project' while the parameters are publicationId/lotId — which slightly muddies the stated purpose.
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, no triggering context, and no exclusions. No sibling directly competes, but the description says nothing to help an agent decide when this is the right call, leaving the decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.