entity_lookupThe Roofing Quotes UK register entry for a firm, by its register identifier (scheme + value, e.g. lei) or by the slug of its page. Exact match; returns the whole record with its page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| scheme | No | identifier scheme, e.g. lei, fca_frn, tdlr_license |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an exact-match lookup and that the full record plus page is returned, but it omits error behavior when no match is found, authentication needs, and the meaning of 'page'.
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 tight sentences with zero waste. The primary action and lookup key are front-loaded before the return behavior.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more. It states the return is the whole record with its page, but it does not describe the record structure, error cases, or how the three optional parameters interact, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.
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 only 33%, and the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the identifier is a combination of scheme and value (e.g. lei) or alternatively a slug. However, it does not clarify mutual exclusivity, precedence, or required-use conditions for the three optional parameters.
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 what the tool does: fetch the register entry for a firm by identifier or slug. It distinguishes from a search tool by stating 'Exact match' and 'returns the whole record with its page,' though it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like entities_search explicitly.
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 description implies when to use it (when you already have an exact identifier or slug), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as entities_search, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.