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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, expected response format, error handling, or any side effects. The only behavioral information is that it searches via an external API.
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 very concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clean list of parameters. Every line earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
While the parameter explanations are complete, the description lacks context about the output format (no output schema provided), potential errors, and any caveats about using the OpenCorporates API. For a search tool, the return value is implied but not described.
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?
All four parameters are described with clear explanations and examples (state: 'CA', status: 'active'), adding significant value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. The limits parameter even specifies valid range and default.
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?
Clearly states the tool searches US business entities by name, specifies the data source (OpenCorporates), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_get_company_details which retrieves details for a specific entity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic search functionality.
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.