get_business_detailsRetrieve a Starling business account's company details, including name, type, registration number and VAT number, for verification or record-keeping.
Business account holders: company name, type, registration number, VAT number, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds no auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, but it does enumerate the returned content, which is meaningful given there is no output schema.
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 short fragment with no padding, front-loading the resource type. It loses a point only because the terminal 'etc.' signals an incomplete field list rather than a deliberate summary.
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 parameterless read-only call with no output schema, the description is the only signal about what comes back, and it lists a few fields followed by 'etc.' That is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape genuinely uncertain, so an agent cannot rely on it to know exactly what it will receive.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate — the schema is empty and needs no compensation.
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 ('Business account holders') and enumerates some fields, which distinguishes it loosely from get_individual_details and get_sole_trader_details. However, there is no verb at all — it never says it retrieves or returns anything — and the trailing 'etc.' leaves the scope undefined, so it reads closer to a restatement of the title than a stated purpose.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like get_individual_details, get_sole_trader_details, and get_account_holder, an agent needs to know this is the one for business-type holders, but the description only hints at that via the noun phrase 'Business account holders' and names no alternatives or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.