Search across supported OEX entity classes using names, aliases, slugs, and official identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional entity-type constraint. | |
| limit | No | Maximum matches; default 8. | |
| query | Yes | Name, alternate title, slug, or official identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "occupation",
- "municipality",
- "geography",
- "sector",
- "training-program",
- "noc-unit-group",
- "data-source",
- "data-provider",
- "economic-region",
- "census-division",
- "trade-region",
- "naics-industry",
- "industrial-facility",
- "open-source-signal",
- "organization",
- "project",
- "procurement-notice",
- "product-or-service",
- "job-posting",
- "employer",
- "business"
-]New value: +[
+ "occupation",
+ "municipality",
+ "geography",
+ "sector",
+ "training-program",
+ "noc-unit-group",
+ "data-source",
+ "data-provider",
+ "economic-region",
+ "census-division",
+ "trade-region",
+ "naics-industry",
+ "industrial-facility",
+ "open-source-signal",
+ "organization",
+ "project",
+ "procurement-notice",
+ "product-or-service",
+ "job-posting",
+ "employer",
+ "business-source-observation",
+ "establishment",
+ "business"
+]Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "occupation",
- "municipality",
- "sector",
- "training-program",
- "noc-unit-group",
- "data-source",
- "data-provider",
- "economic-region",
- "census-division",
- "trade-region",
- "naics-industry",
- "industrial-facility",
- "open-source-signal",
- "organization",
- "project",
- "procurement-notice",
- "job-posting",
- "employer",
- "business"
-]New value: +[
+ "occupation",
+ "municipality",
+ "geography",
+ "sector",
+ "training-program",
+ "noc-unit-group",
+ "data-source",
+ "data-provider",
+ "economic-region",
+ "census-division",
+ "trade-region",
+ "naics-industry",
+ "industrial-facility",
+ "open-source-signal",
+ "organization",
+ "project",
+ "procurement-notice",
+ "product-or-service",
+ "job-posting",
+ "employer",
+ "business"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals matching criteria (names, aliases, slugs, official identifiers) but omits any details about matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact), ordering, pagination, or that it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, though it lacks detail that could make it more useful. It earns its place but could be enriched without harming conciseness.
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 lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity (multiple entity types, search behavior), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response looks like, how results are returned or limited, or how the type constraint works in practice. Significant context is missing.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions covering 100% of them. The description adds minimal extra meaning by using 'aliases' instead of the schema's 'alternate title' and by referencing 'OEX entity classes' broadly, but the schema handles parameter semantics well.
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 clearly identifies a search tool for OEX entity classes using names, aliases, slugs, and official identifiers. It distinguishes itself from specialized siblings like search_businesses and search_employers by implying a broader scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that specialized tools exist for specific entity types or whether this should be used for broad searches only. The description implies usage but does not offer exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Several tools are effectively duplicates or near-duplicates: get_emerging_signals is an explicit alias for list_economic_signals, resolve_entity and resolve_entities overlap heavily, and the markdown variants duplicate their non-markdown reports. Pairs like compare_communities/compare_municipalities and search_businesses/search_licensed_businesses also require reading long contracts to avoid misselection.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern with sensible verbs like get_, list_, search_, and compare_. The main deviations are the backwards-compatible get_emerging_signals alias and prefix choices such as check_business_health vs get_business_health that obscure the underlying distinction.
70 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server, far beyond the 25+ 'too many' threshold. The set is fragmented by format variants, aliases, and multiple overlapping lookup tools, making selection and maintenance costly.
The domain surface is broad: entity resolution, business health, labour, community economy, procurement, and governance evidence are all covered in depth. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps—no sandbox deletion, consent revocation, health-action cancellation, or actual exchange/connect/apply step—that leave agents with dead ends.