Identify which EU countries offer free company registers, the identifier each uses, and which have none with reasons. Use this context before interpreting empty results.
Which countries have a free register, which identifier each uses, and which countries have none — with the reason. Read this before reading an empty result as "does not exist".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the tool's domain and its interpretive role. Since this is a zero-parameter read-only reference, there are no side effects or auth requirements to document. It does not state the output shape, but the content categories are described.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary content is front-loaded and the usage warning earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter reference tool, the description covers the key information: what it lists and why it matters. It lacks an explicit statement of return/table format, but the output is intuitive and the usage guidance is present.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaning to what the tool returns rather than parameter syntax; nothing else is needed here.
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 defines the tool's content: it lists countries with free registers, their identifiers, and countries without one, including reasons. This distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling tools, though it lacks a direct verb phrase and does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 final sentence gives explicit context: consult this tool before interpreting an empty result as proof of nonexistence. This is strong when-to-use guidance, but the description does not explicitly compare against sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.