Search for companies by name (optionally scoped to a jurisdiction) via the OpenCorporates open API. Returns candidate companies for disambiguation. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company name to search (partial match) | |
| limit | No | Max candidates to return | |
| jurisdiction | No | Optional jurisdiction code (e.g. gb, us_de) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is read-only and free, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or response structure. The description is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word is purposeful.
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?
Though there is no output schema, the description mentions that it returns candidate companies for disambiguation, which provides enough context for a simple search tool. It lacks details on result fields but is adequate given low complexity.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds context ('optionally scoped to a jurisdiction') but no new semantics beyond the schema.
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 states the verb (Search), resource (companies), and scoping (by name and optionally jurisdiction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like company_registry_company_profile by mentioning OpenCorporates API and disambiguation.
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 'Returns candidate companies for disambiguation' implies this tool is a first step before getting full profiles, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or list alternatives. The context is clear enough for typical use.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.