Cross-reference an entity across multiple sources and score confidence.
Args:
name: Entity name to verify.
state: Optional 2-letter state code for jurisdiction filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and description lacks behavioral details. It mentions scoring confidence but doesn't explain what sources are checked, what the score means, rate limits, or output format. For a verification tool, these details are crucial.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary text. However, the 'Args:' block is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it's concise.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what sources are cross-referenced, how confidence is scored, or what the output contains, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It briefly explains 'name' and 'state' parameters, but missing details like format constraints (e.g., state must be 2-letter code is given) and what 'jurisdiction filtering' means. The description adds some value but is minimal.
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 verb (cross-reference) and resource (entity) but is vague about what 'cross-reference across multiple sources' entails. Does not differentiate from siblings like search_companies or lookup_npi, which also retrieve entity data.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search_companies and lookup_npi, it's unclear whether this is a verification step after a search or a standalone lookup.
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.