Return the CSRD scope criteria in force—EUR amounts, employee counts, applicable financial years, cited articles, quoted provisions, and exclusions—with no input required.
The CSRD scope thresholds in force (EUR amounts, employee counts, the financial years they apply to), each with the article and quoted provision, plus exclusions. No input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so reasonably: it discloses the exact shape of the returned payload (amounts, counts, years, article citations, quoted provisions, exclusions) and confirms the tool takes no input. It does not state whether the data is a static snapshot, its effective date, or jurisdiction coverage, which are the remaining gaps.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the resource (CSRD thresholds) is front-loaded before the enumerated contents. It is slightly long, but each clause adds verifiable content rather than restating the tool name.
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 no-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to know what comes back, which is the main risk here. It stops short of noting data vintage or scope of coverage, a minor but real gap for a regulatory reference.
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 and the schema is a bare object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly reinforces this with 'No input.', matching the schema rather than contradicting it.
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 resource (CSRD scope thresholds in force) and enumerates its contents (EUR amounts, employee counts, applicable financial years, articles, quoted provisions, exclusions). It clearly tells an agent this is reference data, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling csrd_scope, so an agent must infer the split.
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 closing 'No input.' conveys that this is a parameterless lookup, which implies usage as a reference fetch. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over csrd_scope (raw thresholds vs. scope determination) or timeline/sources, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.