run_hr_companies_searchSearch the Croatia company registry (Sudski registar) by company name: name, MBS, OIB, status, address, court 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. podravka | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 100) Default: 25. | |
| start_page | No | Starting page (20 companies per page) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful billing detail ('1 point per returned record') and lists return fields, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are paginated (though the schema covers pagination).
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 tight sentences with zero waste: the purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the billing note. Every element earns its place.
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?
Without an output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (name, MBS, OIB, status, address, court, link) and provides billing context. It is nearly complete for a search tool but omits any note about authentication or rate limits.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by company name' (keyword) but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides for any parameter.
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 (Search) and resource (Croatia company registry / Sudski registar) with clear scope, and differentiates from the sibling run_hr_companies by indicating a name-based search rather than retrieval. The listed output fields further clarify what the tool returns.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_hr_companies or run_hr_company_filings. It only implies usage through the phrase 'Search ... by company name', leaving the agent to infer context.
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.