Resolve a municipality name or postal code to the official ESTV tax location ID required for tax simulations.
Resolve a municipality name or postal code to an ESTV tax location id (for simulate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| language | No | fr | |
| tax_year | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Resolve' which suggests a read-like operation, but it does not disclose potential failures (e.g., what happens if the municipality/postal code is not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action and the target immediately, and the parenthetical 'for simulate' adds relevant context. It is ideally concise.
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?
Given three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain 'language' or 'tax_year', nor does it mention error behavior or fallback logic. Although an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified for an agent to call this tool correctly in all cases.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only hints that the input is a municipality name or postal code, which maps to the 'query' parameter. The 'language' and 'tax_year' parameters are left unexplained, and the description does not clarify their enums or defaults. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a clear resource ('a municipality name or postal code to an ESTV tax location id'), and ties it to a sibling ('for simulate'). It is clear and distinct from the other tools, which deal with tax returns and deductions. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (e.g., 'use this before simulate'), so it falls just short of a 5.
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 implies usage context: it is a preparatory step for the 'simulate' tool. It gives a clear reason to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative. There is no exclusion guidance, so it is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.