company_registry
Search company registries.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | No |
Search company registries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so description bears full burden. It only says 'Search' implying read access, but no mention of permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but under-specified. Not front-loaded with key information; it's too brief to be effective.
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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is incompletely described. Missing essential behavioral and input context.
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%, and the description adds no meaning about the parameters 'query' and 'jurisdiction'. Fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.
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 states a verb and resource ('Search company registries'), but it's vague and doesn't specify the scope or differentiate from sibling tools like 'edgar_filings' or 'trademarks_search'. A specific verb+resource but lacking distinction.
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. No context about scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.