[Premium Data] Look up company registration records, officers, and filings from global business registries. Args: company_name: Company name to search jurisdiction: Jurisdiction code (e.g., 'us_de' for Delaware, 'gb' for UK) max_results: Max results (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_results | No | ||
| company_name | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the types of data returned (records, officers, filings). It doesn't mention behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only lookup, the main expectations are covered.
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 one sentence followed by a plain args list. It is efficient with no wasted words, and every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the response format. It mentions the types of data (records, officers, filings) but does not detail the structure. For a simple lookup tool, it covers the basics but lacks some completeness.
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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: company_name ('Company name to search'), jurisdiction ('Jurisdiction code (e.g., 'us_de' for Delaware, 'gb' for UK)'), and max_results ('Max results (default 10)'). Examples are provided for jurisdiction, which is valuable.
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 starts with '[Premium Data] Look up company registration records, officers, and filings from global business registries.' It clearly states the verb 'look up' and the resource 'company registration records, officers, and filings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like whois or stock data lookups.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Many sibling tools deal with company data (e.g., sales-intelligence, regulatory-filings), but the description does not explain when this specific lookup is preferred. The '[Premium Data]' tag is a hint but not explicit.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.