run_be_companies_searchSearch the Belgium company registry (KBO/BCE) by company name: name, enterprise number, status, address and link. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Status. Options: active = Active, inactive = Inactive / dissolved | |
| keyword | Yes | Company name. e.g. proximus | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 250) Default: 25. | |
| start_page | No | Starting page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable cost signal ('1 point per returned record'), but omits other important behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This partial coverage merits a middle score.
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 two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core search purpose and immediately follows with the cost model, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a good job of listing the returned fields (name, enterprise number, status, address, link) and including cost information. It omits details like authentication or rate limits, but for a search tool with a fully documented input schema, it is largely complete.
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 100%, meaning all four parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description only echoes that the search is by company name (corresponding to the 'keyword' parameter) and lists output fields, adding no new semantic detail about parameters like status, max_items, or start_page. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Search') and resource ('Belgium company registry (KBO/BCE)') and clarifies it operates by company name, listing returned fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling run_be_companies, which likely provides a detail lookup by enterprise number, so it falls short of the top score.
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 by stating it searches 'by company name', but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_be_companies or other country-specific searches. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.