find_vendorFind a vendor in the VendorWatch catalogue by its exact name or website domain. Returns up to 5 candidates (slug, name, category). Free: no lookup is spent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | The vendor's name, written in full (for example the name on its website). | |
| domain | No | The vendor's website domain, or any host under it (for example app.example.com). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral facts beyond those: it returns up to 5 candidates with specific fields (slug, name, category) and that no lookup is spent. It does not state matching exactness or what happens on failure, but covers key operational traits.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return details and cost. No filler or redundancy.
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 output schema, the description appropriately summarizes return candidates and fields. It notes free operation. Minor gaps remain: no pagination or matching rules, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema, so the description's mention of name/domain adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline is 3 when the schema carries parameter semantics.
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 specific verb (find) and resource (vendor in the VendorWatch catalogue) with the lookup keys (exact name or website domain). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_vendor_profile, which retrieves details rather than performing a lookup.
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?
Implies the lookup-by-identifier use case and notes it is free, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_vendor_profile. The return of multiple candidates signals a disambiguation step, which is helpful context.
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.