Retrieve a government immigration route by entity_id to view its latest retained processing time, collection status, full history, and cohort estimates for forward-looking IRCC routes.
Get one route by entity_id (e.g. 'ca-visitor-visa--in'): latest retained value, collection status, and full recorded history. Forward-looking IRCC routes also include application-month cohort estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the payload (latest value, collection status, full history, forward-looking cohort estimates). However it says nothing about size/volume of 'full recorded history', pagination, or whether the read is safe/idempotent, so coverage of the behavioral profile is partial.
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 tight sentences: the core action and parameters first, then the return contents, with the conditional cohort-estimate clause clearly marked by 'Forward-looking IRCC routes also include'. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does describe the three main components plus a conditional fourth. Missing only operational detail such as response format or history volume limits.
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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: the example 'ca-visitor-visa--in' reveals the expected entity_id format (route slug convention) that the bare 'type: string' schema omits. It stops short of documenting valid values or failure modes, but adds real meaning.
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 one route by entity_id') and enumerates exactly what comes back: latest retained value, collection status, full recorded history, plus cohort estimates for forward-looking routes. This implicitly separates it from the sibling get_latest_value (history vs. latest only), but no sibling is named outright, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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 on when to reach for this tool versus search_entities, compare_values, or get_latest_value, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the output-content wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.