Look up a company on xtrust.info by slug or name. Returns contacts, rating, phone reputation (KtoZvonil), site trust (Truster) and the official legal entity from the Ukrainian registry (ЄДР).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Company slug from a /biz/{slug} URL | |
| query | No | Company name (used when slug is not given) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns various data points, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention failure cases, parameter precedence, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the core lookup behavior.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists return categories without any redundancy or extraneous text.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return categories, which is helpful. It omits some edge-case behavior (e.g., when both slug and query are given), but the schema covers that. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward lookup tool.
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?
Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the slug-or-name dichotomy but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies the tool's function: looking up a company on xtrust.info by slug or name. It also enumerates specific return data, distinguishing it from search_companies and post_review, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.
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 description implies usage when an exact slug or company name is available, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_companies or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
