similar_finderFind companies similar to a given domain. Returns a list of competitor or similar businesses based on industry, size, and other factors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to find similar companies for (e.g., 'example.com') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, lowering the description's burden. The description adds useful context that results are based on industry, size, and other factors, but it does not disclose data sources, ranking logic, pagination, or result variability beyond what openWorldHint already implies.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause contributes information.
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, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, this description is nearly complete: it states what to do, what is returned, and the similarity criteria. It could be improved by pointing to mpp_similar_finder or noting limitations, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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 100%, and the input schema already gives a meaningful description for the single domain parameter. The tool description mostly restates the schema's intent and adds no extra guidance about domain syntax or edge cases.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('companies similar to a given domain') and states the output type ('a list of competitor or similar businesses'). It is distinct from domain_status and domain_search, though it does not differentiate from the sibling mpp_similar_finder or clarify its relationship to companies_search.
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?
The phrase 'for a given domain' establishes a clear precondition: call this tool when the agent has a domain and wants similar companies. However, there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of the top tier.
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.