eudamed_actorsLook up an exact actor SRN or four-digit notified body ID to retrieve organizational identity, role, country, and status without personal names, addresses, or contact details.
Look up an exact actor SRN or four-digit notified body ID. Returns organizational identity, role, country and status; excludes personal names, addresses and contact details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actorId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the description's value is in disclosing the shape of the result: identity, role, country, status, and importantly the exclusion of personal names, addresses and contact details. That exclusion is real context an agent cannot get from the annotations. Not found / empty-result behavior is left unstated.
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 sentences, no filler. The lookup scope comes first and the return/exclusion clause second, which is the right order for an agent scanning for eligibility.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return fields and privacy exclusions, which is the main gap it needed to fill for a single-parameter read tool. Missing only edge-case behavior such as an unknown or malformed identifier.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it explains that actorId is either an SRN or a four-digit notified body ID, which gives meaning to the regex pattern in the schema. It stops short of giving an example SRN or clarifying where to obtain one.
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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('actor'), and calls out the two accepted identifier types (SRN, four-digit notified body ID). The word 'exact' implicitly separates it from eudamed_discover_actors, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferred 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Exact' lookup implies this tool is for when you already hold a known identifier, and by contrast search-like intent belongs elsewhere. However, no alternative (e.g., eudamed_discover_actors) is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.