eu-reg-mcp

micar_register_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Track recent MiCAR register activity: view added, changed, or removed entries and see whether each record remains in the latest snapshot.

Instructions

Recent register movement: new filings, changed entries, removals.

change_type: all | added | changed | removed. Each record says whether the entry is still listed in the latest snapshot.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`change_type`	No		all

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Oct 18, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / change_type / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "all",
+  "added",
+  "changed",
+  "removed"
+]
```
First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that each record indicates whether the entry is still listed in the latest snapshot — but omits how far back 'recent' extends and any pagination/freshness behavior, so it adds only moderate value.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short fragments with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The change_type line is slightly manual-like but still earns its place as a filter summary.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the record-listing semantics are noted. However, with zero schema description coverage, the description should still clarify the limit/recency semantics; that omission leaves the definition only minimally complete for a delta-listing tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description restates the change_type enum values already present in the schema but never explains the 'limit' parameter or the meaning of 'recent', so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource ('Recent register movement: new filings, changed entries, removals'), so an agent immediately knows this is a change/delta feed. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like search_micar_register or micar_register_summary, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to choose this delta tool over search_micar_register or micar_register_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The enumeration of change_type values is parameter detail, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server