Deep company intelligence for a buyer: corporate registry verification, customs import records, supply chain mapping, decision-maker profiling, risk flags. Returns 0-100 score with evidence chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_iso | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code | |
| target_domain | Yes | Buyer's website domain | |
| target_company_name | No | Buyer's company name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by mentioning external data sources and an evidence chain, but doesn't disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or required permissions for accessing customs records.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists capabilities concisely. Every word adds value, with no 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?
The description covers the main capabilities and return type (score with evidence chain). Given the lack of output schema, it adequately informs the agent. However, it misses context like when to use this tool in a workflow (e.g., before quoting) or error handling.
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 individual parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the output (score with evidence) and listing data sources, which are not in the schema. However, it could clarify the optional parameters' roles (e.g., country_iso for region-specific searches).
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 clearly states the tool provides deep company intelligence including specific data sources (corporate registry, customs records, etc.) and a score with evidence. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_buyers' and 'enrich_buyer_contact' by focusing on comprehensive analysis.
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. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., needing at least a domain), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'enrich_buyer_contact'.
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.
