Fetch officers, agent, and filing history for a known company.
Args: company_id: OpenCorporates company number. jurisdiction: Jurisdiction code (e.g. 'us_de', 'us_ca').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not mention read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or permissions. It only lists what data is returned, lacking behavioral details beyond that.
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?
Description is extremely concise with two sentences plus parameter explanations, no redundant information, and purpose front-loaded.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and expects. Lacks output structure info but given low complexity, it is largely complete.
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 0% schema description coverage, description explains both parameters (company_id as OpenCorporates number, jurisdiction as code format), adding essential meaning beyond the schema's empty titles.
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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch officers, agent, and filing history for a known company', specifying verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling search tools (e.g., search_companies) and specific filing tools (e.g., get_sec_filing, get_ucc_filings).
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?
Description implies usage when company_id and jurisdiction are known, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use compared to siblings like search_companies or verify_entity.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct public records source (company, SEC, UCC, spending, NPI, courts, licenses) with clear differentiation between search and retrieval operations. Minimal overlap and no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'mcp_verb_noun' pattern using get, lookup, search, and verify. No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
10 tools cover a broad range of public records domains without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by targeting a specific source or operation.
The set covers many common public records, but mcp_get_ucc_filings is a roadmap stub returning not_implemented, which is a significant functional gap. Missing sources like property or criminal records are expected, but the non-functional tool hurts completeness.