Retrieves detailed company information from Fiken using its company slug. Use it to look up a specific organization's core details before reading balances, invoices, or supplier data.
Hent detaljer om et foretak fra dets Fiken company_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on which company fields are returned, on access to other companies, or on failure behavior for an unknown slug.
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?
One short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient but almost too terse given the schema gap.
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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It does not clarify the slug format or what 'details' encompasses, which would matter for correct invocation.
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 only parameter (company_slug) is undocumented in the schema. The description weakly indicates it is a Fiken company identifier, but gives no format, casing, or example, leaving the agent to guess the slug's shape.
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 and resource ("Hent detaljer om et foretak") plus the key identifier (company_slug). This cleanly separates it from the list-style sibling fiken_list_companies, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent can infer this is the single-company lookup versus fiken_list_companies, but the description never states that condition or any prerequisites (e.g. obtaining a slug first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.