Find the companies a person or entity is a partner of, by name. Exact (accent-insensitive, case-insensitive) match on the partner name by default; set contains=true for a substring match (uf required). Optionally narrow with cpf_middle (the 6 digits Receita publishes, e.g. '240659') because the same name can belong to different people. Returns company name, status and role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| contains | No | ||
| cpf_middle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "search_partnersOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses match semantics (exact by default, accent- and case-insensitive), the uf requirement when contains=true, and the returned fields (company name, status, role). It does not mention pagination (limit/offset) or result-size behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the default-match behavior. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description correctly enumerates the return fields (company name, status and role). Combined with the match and disambiguation semantics, this is nearly complete for invocation; only pagination behavior is missing.
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 description must compensate across 6 parameters. It explains name matching, contains, cpf_middle (with the '240659' example) and the uf dependency, but leaves limit/offset undocumented and never defines what 'uf' is (a Brazilian state code), leaving two parameters ambiguous.
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?
Names a specific verb (Find) and a precise, directional resource (the companies a person/entity is a partner of), which is meaningfully different from list_partners and search_companies. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction, keeping it below a 5.
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?
It gives clear conditional guidance for parameters (set contains=true for substring; uf required in that case; use cpf_middle to disambiguate homonyms), but never states when to choose this tool over the sibling list_partners (the inverse direction) or search_companies. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than routed.
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.