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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'cross-reference an entity across multiple sources and score confidence.' It does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it modifies data. Minimal transparency.
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 short but includes an Args block which is somewhat verbose for a tool description. Could be more concise by integrating parameter info into the main sentence.
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?
No output schema, and the description only mentions scoring confidence without specifying format or range. Given the complexity of verification, more detail on return values or behavior is needed.
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 meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: 'name' is 'Entity name to verify' and 'state' is 'Optional 2-letter state code for jurisdiction filtering.' Schema had no descriptions, so this is valuable.
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 it cross-references an entity across multiple sources and scores confidence, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like mcp_search_companies.
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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose verification over search tools like mcp_search_companies or mcp_search_licenses.
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.