Search Chinese enterprise business-registration and equity data by keyword across registry platforms like aiqicha. Collects default equity fields with depth=0 for lightweight intelligence gathering.
Lightweight search — collect with depth=0 (same default equity fields).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| keyword | Yes | ||
| platform | No | aiqicha |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 burden. It hints at a 'lightweight' mode but does not state read vs write semantics, rate limits, auth requirements, or what the depth=0 constraint actually changes about returned data.
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 fragment, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The dash structure front-loads a vague descriptor and then references an undefined sibling concept (depth=0) with no context.
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 three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no explanation of the keyword/platform/fields inputs, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, even though an output schema exists.
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 0% — all three parameters (keyword, platform, fields) lack descriptions. The description only mentions depth, which is not even a declared parameter, so it fails to compensate for undocumented fields like platform (default 'aiqicha') or fields.
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 says it is a 'search' and ties it to depth=0 collection, but it does not clearly state what it searches (enterprise data) nor how it differs in purpose from the sibling enterprise_collect tool that it references. An agent cannot confidently distinguish the two verbs.
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?
It implies when to use it — lightweight collection with depth=0 and the same default equity fields — which gives a soft routing hint against the heavier enterprise_collect. However, it never explicitly says to prefer enterprise_collect for depth>0, so the boundary is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.