โปรไฟล์ของบริษัท CODENIVERSE เอง (บริษัทเดียว ไม่ใช่ระบบค้นหาบริษัทอื่น) ครอบคลุมผู้ก่อตั้ง ประสบการณ์ หลักการทำงาน และช่องทางติดต่อ ใช้เมื่อผู้ใช้ถามว่าบริษัทนี้คือใคร ใครเป็น CEO เชื่อถือได้แค่ไหน
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or auth requirements. It only describes content, not behavior.
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?
Description is concise (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose and use cases. No unnecessary words.
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 no output schema, the description adequately summarizes return content (founders, experience, principles, contacts). Could be more explicit about structure, but sufficient for a simple 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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add param info. Baseline score of 4 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?
Description clearly states it retrieves the profile of CODENIVERSE company itself, not a search for others, and lists covered aspects (founders, experience, principles, contacts). It distinguishes from siblings which are articles, pages, services, search, and lead submission.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: when the user asks who the company is, who the CEO is, how reliable it is. Also notes it's not a search system for other companies, implying when not to use. No alternative tools are mentioned, but siblings are not similar.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear actions—search, get, list, submit—so an agent can usually pick correctly. The only potential confusion is between get_company_profile and get_page for about/company info, and between search_articles and get_article, but the descriptions provide enough usage cues to resolve it.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_*, list_*, search_*, submit_*. The verbs accurately reflect the operation, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a company information and lead-generation server. Each tool covers a distinct content type or action—articles, pages, company profile, services, FAQ, and lead submission—without unnecessary redundancy.
The server covers the full informational lifecycle for CODENIVERSE: discover and read articles, search FAQs, view service listings and detailed pages, access company profile information, and submit leads. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the intended use case.