BizClaw Business Directory MCP

Get Company by Website

get_company_by_website

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a company by its website URL.
Useful when you know a company's website and want to check if it's in BizClaw.

Args:
    website_url: The company's website URL (e.g. "https://example.com" or "example.com")

Returns:
    Company profile if found, or an error message.

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.
`website_url`	Yes	Company website URL or domain, for example example.com or https://example.com.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return behavior, 'Company profile if found, or an error message,' which is useful but does not go beyond that into rate limits, auth, or URL-normalization behavior.

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 and well-structured with a one-line purpose, a use-case sentence, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: input format, when to use, and expected return. Nothing necessary for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the description of website_url in both the schema and the Args section provides the same examples ('https://example.com' or 'example.com'). The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a company by its website URL.' It also clarifies the secondary intent, 'check if it's in BizClaw,' which distinguishes this exact-match lookup from broader sibling tools like search_companies or get_company.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: when you know a company's website URL and want to check whether it exists in BizClaw. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context provided is clear enough to guide selection.

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?