web-presence-audit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_nap_consistency

Compare phone numbers between a business's website and free UK directories to spot NAP mismatches. Returns each source's number and a consistency verdict.

Instructions

Check the phone number (NAP: Name/Address/Phone consistency) between the business's own website and the free UK directories (thomsonlocal, TrustATrader), via Bing's public RSS search. A mismatched number confuses both Google and dialling customers. Returns the phone found on each source and a verdict: 'consistent', 'inconsistent', or 'insufficient data'.

Args: business: Business name, e.g. "Driver Plumbing & Heating". city: UK city, e.g. "Leicester". trade: Trade keyword (plumber, electrician...) — guessed from the business name if omitted. website_url: The business's website if you know it — skips the search step and makes the NAP comparison stronger.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "business": "<business>",
      "city": "<city>"
    },
    "name": "check_nap_consistency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	Yes
`trade`	No
`business`	Yes
`website_url`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the mechanism (Bing public RSS search), the sources queried, and the possible verdict values ('consistent', 'inconsistent', 'insufficient data'). It omits failure modes, rate limits, and staleness of the public RSS data, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is terse and example-driven. The aside about mismatched numbers confusing Google and dialling customers is motivational filler that does not change how the tool is called.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only lookup with an output schema and no annotations, the definition covers inputs, sources, and verdict semantics well enough to invoke correctly. It leaves minor gaps around public-RSS availability and what happens when no directory match is found (beyond the 'insufficient data' verdict), which the output schema may cover.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is explained with an example, plus behavioral semantics the schema lacks (trade is inferred from the business name when omitted; website_url skips the search and strengthens the comparison). The defaults in the schema are also clarified in prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the phone number... NAP consistency') and names the two sides being compared (the business's own website vs thomsonlocal/TrustATrader). The mention that supplying website_url 'skips the search step' implicitly distinguishes it from the find_website sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives useful per-argument context (website_url skips the search, trade is guessed if omitted) but never states when to pick this tool over siblings like check_tap_to_call, check_form_platform, or run_full_audit. Usage is implied by the name rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server