Frontier Signal MCP

Get a programme

get_programme

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up one verified programme by exact, substring, or fuzzy name; returns the best match and alternatives, or confirms no recorded match.

Instructions

Look up one verified programme by exact or fuzzy name.

Prefer exact and substring matches. If several names match, the best hit is returned and others are listed as alternatives. A miss returns match_kind=none — this tool does not invent a programme.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_programme"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Programme name to look up (exact, substring, or fuzzy).
`observed`	No	Baseline date YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the latest committed cut.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`match`	No
`query`	Yes
`message`	No
`observed`	Yes
`match_kind`	Yes
`alternatives`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: tie-breaking (best hit returned, others as alternatives) and negative-result semantics (match_kind=none, no invented programme). It does not discuss the baseline-date scoping behavior, but that is a minor omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the tie-breaking rule, then the failure mode. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct fact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the operation, matching behavior, and the miss case. The only gap is the `observed` baseline parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the matching modes the `name` schema field already lists. The preference ordering for exact/substring over fuzzy is a slight value-add, but the `observed` baseline parameter is not addressed in the description at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up one verified programme') and stresses singularity, which implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling. It stops short of naming list_buyer_programmes directly, so the sibling contrast 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives matching guidance ('prefer exact and substring matches') and defines the miss case, which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_buyer_programmes or demand_mix, 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.

Deploy Server