Fetch public company details by stable ID or slug, including description, website, categories, and headquarters, to support remote job research.
Get public details of one company by stable ID or slug, including its description, website, categories and headquarters when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the data is 'public' and that fields are returned 'when available', warning the agent about optional/absent fields.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; purpose and the returned field set are both delivered immediately.
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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema already documenting return shape and with safety hints in annotations, the description is nearly complete; only explicit guidance on choosing this over search_companies is missing.
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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does: it explains the single 'id' can be a stable ID or a slug, matching the schema's oneOf integer/string union and adding the semantic that the ID is stable.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (company) scoped to a single entity looked up by stable ID or slug, and enumerates the returned fields. This implicitly and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_companies, which handles multi-entity search.
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 phrase 'by stable ID or slug' implies a direct-lookup use case versus searching, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_companies, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.