Look up Nigerian companies on the Corporate Affairs Commission register.
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of misselection or overlap. Its purpose (searching the CAC public register by entity name, RC number, or AV code) is stated clearly and covers all the ways an agent might want to query.
A single tool named public_search follows a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern. With one tool there are no competing conventions to conflict, and the name is descriptive of its action.
One tool is thin even for a narrowly scoped registry-search server; lookup by name, RC number, and AV code are all funneled into a single endpoint. It is defensible for a single-purpose search API, but leaves little surface for agents to compose workflows.
Search is the core operation and is covered, but there is no companion operation for retrieving full entity details, officers, or status history once an RC number is found. Agents can work around this only if the search response itself returns complete records.
Search the Nigerian CAC public register for companies and business names by entity name, RC number, or AV code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_message | No | Short user-facing sentence for this action if the follow-up reply fails. Plain text only; do not mention template syntax or variable names. | |
| step_1_body_SearchType | No | Search mode. Use ALL unless the user specifies RC number or AV code lookup. | |
| step_1_body_searchTerm | Yes | Entity name, RC number, or AV code to search for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does convey that the data source is a public register, implying read-only, unauthenticated access. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, rate limits, or partial-name matching behavior, which are material for a search endpoint that can return many rows.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, with zero filler. Every clause (register, entity type, lookup keys) adds information.
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 and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about result shape and volume, but the well-documented input schema covers the invocation side. Adequate but with clear gaps for a search tool.
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 enum and field meanings are already documented; the description only restates the identifier types that map to searchTerm/SearchType. The third parameter (notification_message) is not addressed at all, but the schema covers it, so baseline 3 applies.
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'), a specific resource ('the Nigerian CAC public register for companies and business names'), and the exact lookup keys (entity name, RC number, AV code). An agent knows precisely what this tool does; no sibling differentiation is needed since none exist.
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?
Usage is implied by the enumerated lookup keys, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this search mode or when not to use it (e.g., partial vs exact matching, what to do when no results are returned). The rule for choosing a SearchType lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
public_searchFind legal companies, retrieve registry profiles and verify company facts with source evidence.
Company search and enrichment from official business registers in 200+ countries.
Search company records, officers, ownership, group structures and financials with provenance.
Search, verify & screen 1M+ African companies + their government contracts across 18 registries.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
