company_judgement基于明确指定的企业名称，查询该企业涉及的裁判文书信息，包括案号、日期、案件名称、案由、案件身份等。
Pricing: {"unit": "credits", "billing_model": "per_run", "per_run": 0.2}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 指定返回第几页结果，从 1 开始，默认 1；与 limit 配合使用。 | |
| limit | No | 指定单次请求最多返回的记录数，默认 20，最大 100。 | |
| company_name | Yes | 企业名称（必填）。用于查询该企业的裁判文书信息。示例：通威股份有限公司 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include openWorldHint and do not declare read-only or destructive behavior. The description clarifies the data domain and the exact-name requirement, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result completeness, data-source caveats, or failure modes beyond what the schema already communicates. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's core purpose and output contents. The embedded pricing JSON adds some metadata overhead but does not obscure the essential meaning, and there is no wasted prose.
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?
For a straightforward paginated query tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description plus structured fields provides sufficient context. It could be improved with explicit notes about exact-name matching, empty result behavior, or data-source limitations, but the overall package is complete enough for reliable selection and 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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight emphasis on '明确指定' (explicit/exact company name) and lists output fields, but it does not materially improve parameter understanding 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 identifies the specific action and resource: querying court judgment documents for a company by name, and it enumerates the returned fields (案号、日期、案件名称、案由、案件身份). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on violations, penalties, or enforcement records.
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 the user needs court judgment information for a known, explicitly specified company—but it does not explain when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many similar company_* tools. The '明确指定' phrase hints at exact-name matching but is not expanded into clear guidance.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, with consistent scopes (e.g., chain_* vs park_* vs company_* vs gov_data_*). The list/num pairs are clearly differentiated. A few overlapping concepts exist (e.g., company_patent vs enterprise_change_innovation) but descriptions clarify the angle. Some typos (company_randomin_spection) don't cause ambiguity.
Naming follows a mostly predictable snake_case pattern with prefixes indicating domain (chain_, park_, company_, enterprise_change_, gov_data_, poi_data_, business_surrounding_, cbd_surrounding_). Most tools use <prefix>_<entity>_<action> or <prefix>_<subject>. A few outliers (sg_chokepoint, tariff_calc, corporate_exception_report) deviate but are few and recognizable.
With 198 tools, this is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server. It exceeds even the 'extreme mismatch' threshold of 50+ tools. The large number makes selection and discoverability challenging, despite good internal organization.
The tool surface covers a vast range of enterprise data, regional macro stats, POI details, supply chain analysis, and tariffs. It appears to cover the primary domain comprehensively, with only minor potential gaps (e.g., no direct tool for company debt ratings or specific product catalogs, but these are addressed via enterprise_change_* and company_* tools).