Retrieve detailed company information by providing a 13-digit corporate number. Returns official name, address, and entity type in markdown format.
法人番号から企業の詳細情報を取得する.
13桁の法人番号を指定して、法人の正式名称・所在地・種別などを取得。
Args: corp_number: 法人番号（13桁の数字）
Returns: 法人の詳細情報（マークダウン）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| corp_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (markdown) but does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid or missing number), authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is brief and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by an Args/Returns block. No unnecessary text; every sentence earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded.
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 simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the core: what it does, what to provide, and the return format. It does not explain error cases or when to use it versus siblings, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, it is reasonably complete. A slightly richer description would improve this.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter corp_number as a 13-digit number, giving its format and purpose. This adds meaning beyond the plain string schema, though it could mention formatting nuances (e.g., leading zeros) or validation rules.
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 states the tool retrieves corporate details from a corporate number (法人番号), listing specific fields (official name, location, type). It differentiates itself from search_corporations by requiring the exact 13-digit number, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.
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?
Usage is implied: the tool requires a 13-digit corporate number, so it is used when that number is available. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_corporations or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.