Search professional / business licenses (NPI + FCC, more sources roadmap).
Args: entity_name: Licensee name. license_type: 'npi' | 'medical' | 'fcc' | 'radio' | 'all'. state: 2-letter state code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| entity_name | Yes | ||
| license_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the burden is on the description. It does not disclose potential behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The behavior is implied as a standard search, but details are lacking.
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, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a clear list of arguments. The phrase 'more sources roadmap' is somewhat vague but does not detract significantly.
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 description covers parameters, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or any side effects. For a search tool with no output schema, this information is important for an agent to handle results correctly.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by listing allowed values for license_type (e.g., 'npi', 'medical', 'fcc') and specifying state format as '2-letter state code'. Entity_name is described as 'Licensee name'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 professional/business licenses including NPI and FCC sources. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on companies, SEC filings, court cases, etc., but does not explicitly differentiate from mcp_lookup_npi which may overlap.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mcp_lookup_npi or mcp_search_companies. The description merely lists parameters without context on typical use cases or exclusions.
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.