Search US business entities by name (OpenCorporates).
Args:
name: Company or trade name to search for.
state: 2-letter US state code (e.g. 'CA') to narrow jurisdiction.
status: Filter by current status (e.g. 'active', 'dissolved').
limit: Max results (1-100, default 25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only discloses the source (OpenCorporates) and the limit bounds (1-100, default 25). It says nothing about result ordering, fuzzy vs exact matching, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no match is found.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the purpose and source, followed by a tight four-line Args block with zero filler. Given the schema has no property descriptions, the argument list is not redundant but necessary.
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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is adequate on inputs but silent on outputs — no indication of returned fields, result-count metadata, or how to page beyond the limit. An agent can invoke it, but cannot anticipate the response shape.
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 Args block does the entire job, and it does it well: each of the four parameters gets meaning, a format example ('CA', 'active'), and the limit's range and default. It stops short of edge-case behavior, but clearly compensates for the empty 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search US business entities by name') and names the data source (OpenCorporates). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_company_details or verify_entity by being a name-based search, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite nine sibling tools including get_company_details and verify_entity that an agent could confuse with this one. Param hints ('narrow jurisdiction') are the only contextual signals.
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.