get_participantsCurrent participants (shareholders, members) of a Lithuanian legal entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Lithuanian legal-entity code (juridinio asmens kodas). | |
| screen | No | Set true to screen the company and every person named in this answer against the official EU, UN, US (OFAC) and UK sanctions lists. Each potential match comes with its score and the reasons for it. Adds the screening fee to the call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / screenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Set true to screen the company and every person named in this answer against the official EU, UN, US (OFAC) and UK sanctions lists. Each potential match comes with its score and the reasons for it. Adds the screening fee to the call.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the resource name. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what the response contains, or that the optional 'screen' flag incurs a fee (that detail lives only in the schema).
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to convey behavior, yet it omits result contents, read-only nature, and how it differs from get_beneficial_owners. The word 'Current' is the sole added nuance, which is insufficient for this data-retrieval 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the 'code' pattern/format and the 'screen' screening behavior are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('participants') and resource ('shareholders, members') scoped to a Lithuanian legal entity, which an agent can understand. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling get_beneficial_owners, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite siblings like get_beneficial_owners, lookup_company, and get_due_diligence_report that overlap in scope. An agent must guess which tool retrieves which slice of company data.
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.