Returns data version details—tariff load date and source, antidumping and rulings list dates, and fee table source—so you can verify the provenance and freshness of customs rate data.
Data versions of this server: tariff load date and source, antidumping and rulings list dates, fee table source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response actually contains (load dates, list dates, sources), which is important because there is no output schema. It does not mention date formats or how missing/never-loaded data is represented.
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 compact clause with no filler, and the most useful information (that it exposes data versions) is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement, which slightly reduces immediate clarity but wastes no words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents well enough for an agent to decide to call it. Gaps are minor: no date format, no statement of which datasets are absent if not yet loaded.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field list it does provide relates to the return payload rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.
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 the resource precisely: data versions of this server, enumerated as tariff load date and source, antidumping and rulings list dates, and fee table source. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (searches, calculators, parsers) as the metadata/provenance tool. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' and the name 'server_status' is broader than the actual content, which keeps it from 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?
There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for checking data currency/provenance before trusting tariff, antidumping, or fee results. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.