Search UK companies by name or number — returns number, status, type, creation date, address. Source: Companies House (UK), OGL v3.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Company name or number search term (e.g. 'BBC' or '00002078') | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) |
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields and the data source (Companies House, OGL v3.0), which is useful context. However, it does not mention behavior such as pagination, rate limits, search matching rules, or what happens when no matches are found. This is partial transparency.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return fields and source. Every sentence is purposeful, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.
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 simple search tool with two parameters, the description is complete enough: it states what it returns, the data source, and the search criteria. It does not explain pagination behavior or differences from similar sibling tools, but these are not critical for basic usage. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the return fields.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description's mention of 'by name or number' mirrors the schema's 'q' parameter description. The limit parameter is already explained as 'Max results (default 10)'. The description does not add new parameter-level details.
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 tool searches UK companies by name or number and lists the specific return fields (number, status, type, creation date, address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uk_company_profile (which provides detailed company data) and uk_company_officers (which focuses on officers). The verb 'Search' and explicit resource 'UK companies' make the purpose unambiguous.
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 this tool is for searching UK companies by name or number, and the return fields suggest it provides basic company information. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like uk_company_profile for detailed lookups or screen_companies for filtering. There is no explicit 'when not to use' 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.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.