Retrieve Dutch KVK company details by company number, with optional VAT validation via VIES.
KVK detail (basisprofiel) [GET /v1/kvk/{companyNumber}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vat | No | Voeg derived VAT toe en valideer optioneel via VIES (`vat=true`). Alias: `vies`. | |
| vies | No | Alias voor `vat` – valideer VAT via VIES (`vies=true`). | |
| companyNumber | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states neither authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the optional VIES validation triggers external calls, nor what the 'basisprofiel' response contains. Only the endpoint string discloses that it is a read by company number.
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 compact fragment with the resource identified first and the endpoint appended. It wastes no words, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 must explain what a 'basisprofiel' returns and how it differs from the branch and search siblings. It omits this entirely, leaving the agent unable to judge fit or expected output for a tool with three parameters.
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 coverage is 67%: the vat/vies aliases are described in the schema, but the required companyNumber parameter has no schema description. The description contributes nothing beyond echoing the path template {companyNumber} and adds no meaning to the optional VAT/VIES validation parameter.
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 names the resource (KVK detail / basisprofiel) and the endpoint GET /v1/kvk/{companyNumber}, so the operation is identifiable. However, 'detail' is generic and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the nearby sibling getapi_kvk_detail_branch or clarify the relationship to getapi_kvk_search. Adequate but with a clear differentiation gap.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus getapi_kvk_search or getapi_kvk_detail_branch, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid companyNumber from a search). Only the implicit GET semantics hint at read usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.