run_nz_companies_searchSearch the New Zealand company registry (Companies Register) by company name: name, registration 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. fonterra | |
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the per-record cost ('1 point per returned record') and the fields returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination semantics (despite a start_page parameter), or rate limits.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and country, then lists return fields and cost. No filler; each clause carries information, though the return-field list is somewhat tacked on.
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?
No output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, link), which largely compensates. With 100% schema coverage and cost disclosed, it is nearly complete, the main gap being the absence of any note on result pagination behavior tied to start_page.
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 every parameter (keyword, status enum, max_items default, start_page) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default info beyond what structured fields provide, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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 (New Zealand company registry / Companies Register) plus the lookup key (company name) and the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from country-peers by naming New Zealand, but never names the closest siblings run_nz_companies or run_nz_company_documents, so scope-vs-alternative remains implicit.
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 phrase 'by company name' implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to run_nz_companies (registry lookup) or run_nz_company_documents (filings/documents), which are the natural alternatives an agent must choose between.
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.