Company to URL API JSON lookup for domains from a company name.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"company": "<company>"
},
"name": "company-to-url"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'lookup' suggests a simple read, yet readOnlyHint is false, and the description does nothing to clarify whether this call has side effects, requires an API key, consumes paid credits (as the x402-named siblings hint), or is rate-limited. With no amplification of the sparse annotations, an agent gets no behavioral context beyond the flags themselves.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, but it front-loads redundant wording ('Company to URL API JSON lookup') rather than the useful constraint about the company-name input.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what comes back (a domain, a URL, a list of candidates) and how ambiguity in company names is resolved. It supplies neither, leaving the return shape entirely undisclosed.
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?
There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. Saying domains come 'from a company name' does clarify what the `company` string should contain, but it gives no format guidance (legal suffix? ticker? free text? multiple matches?).
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 identifies the transformation (company name in, domain/URL out) and labels it a JSON lookup, so the general purpose is inferable. However, it largely rephrases the tool name and uses 'Company to URL API JSON lookup' as filler, without stating what kind of domains are returned or in what form.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the near-identical sibling x402-company-to-url, nor over domain-lookup or domain-api-json. No prerequisites, input format expectations, or exclusions are given.
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.