build_registration_detailsFormats shareholder names, designation, and address into a registration details string for Automic Registry reports without creating or modifying records.
Format names, designation and address into a registration details string. Creates nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| designation | No | Account designation, e.g. <SMITH FAMILY A/C> | |
| namesOnSameLine | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Creates nothing' largely restates them. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say the result is a plain string, how overseas vs Australian addresses are rendered differently, or how missing optional fields are handled despite openWorldHint=true.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the scope disclaimers land early. However, the terseness crosses into under-specification for a tool with nested inputs rather than being economically complete.
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, so the description should convey the shape of the produced string and the effect of namesOnSameLine and address type selection; it does neither. For a formatting utility whose whole value is the output layout, the definition leaves the agent guessing at the exact result.
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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate: it lists names/designation/address but ignores 'namesOnSameLine' entirely, which is a behavior-changing boolean, and says nothing about how addressLine1/2, state, or overseas vs Australian formatting are combined. With nested objects and low coverage, real clarification was needed 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 gives a specific verb and result object ('Format ... into a registration details string') and enumerates the three main inputs (names, designation, address). It is clear enough to distinguish from the report/listing siblings, though it never names an actual alternative tool it feeds into.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'Creates nothing' hints this is a pure formatting helper to be chained before some downstream registration step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what consumes the resulting string, and no exclusions versus the sibling report tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.