BizClaw Business Directory MCP

Get Company

get_company

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details for a specific company by its ID.
Returns the complete company profile including features, use cases, pricing, and contact info.

Args:
    company_id: The UUID of the company (obtained from search results)

Returns:
    Complete company profile dictionary, or an error if not found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No	Optional UCP request metadata. Use {'ucp-agent': {'profile': 'https://agent.example/.well-known/ucp'}} for UCP-aware negotiation.
`company_id`	Yes	BizClaw company UUID returned by search_companies or get_company_by_website.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns a complete company profile and errors when the company is not found. This provides context beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, starts with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no boilerplate or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the read-only annotations, complete schema coverage, simple parameter shape, and presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing. The description covers the lookup source, return content, and error behavior adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents company_id and meta fully. The description mostly restates the same information about company_id, adding little new semantic value, which matches the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource pair: 'Get full details for a specific company by its ID.' It also enumerates the returned content (features, use cases, pricing, contact info), which makes the tool's purpose concrete. The ID-based lookup distinguishes it from the sibling get_company_by_website.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The Args section tells the agent that company_id comes from search results, establishing clear context of when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All BizClaw Business Directory MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions: searching, retrieving company details, creating proposals, and replying. The main potential confusion is between search_companies and ask_about_companies, and between create_proposal and create_batch_proposals, but their descriptions clarify the intended use cases well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern like search_companies, get_company, create_proposal, and reply_to_proposal. ask_about_companies deviates slightly from the pattern but is still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a business directory MCP server covering discovery, company lookup, and proposal management. Each tool has a distinct role and no tool feels redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflow well: search companies, get details, create proposals individually or in batch, list proposals, and reply to company responses. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit cancel/update proposal or direct proposal-by-ID lookup—but these are not blocking for typical usage.

Resources

Need Help?