Retrieve CSRC administrative penalties and enforcement actions from csrc.gov.cn. Returns filings and counts for regulatory compliance and risk assessment.
List CSRC administrative-penalty / enforcement actions (csrc.gov.cn).
Returns: {filings, count} or {error}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| begin_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the response envelope ({filings, count} or {error}). Since an output schema already exists, the return-shape sentence is largely redundant, and nothing is said about data freshness, live-site dependency, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing in the text is wasted even though the second sentence is partially redundant with the output schema.
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 two-optional-parameter list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential what but leaves the parameters and any usage conditions unexplained. Adequate as a minimum but clearly incomplete on the filtering behavior.
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 0% across the two parameters (limit, begin_date), and the description adds nothing about them. It never mentions that begin_date filters by filing date or how limit interacts with the returned count, so an agent gets no semantics beyond the bare names.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CSRC administrative-penalty / enforcement actions') and pins the source domain (csrc.gov.cn), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_csrc_filings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or auth note, and no mention of alternatives such as list_csrc_filings. The agent must infer that this is the enforcement-specific counterpart purely from the resource noun.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.