Leadgen MCP

Watch an activity for new firms

watch_caen

Idempotent

Monitor a CAEN activity code, optionally by county, to surface newly registered firms after a registration-date cutoff; polling advances the cutoff so each firm appears once.

Instructions

Watch a CAEN activity code, optionally scoped to one county, for newly registered firms. A registration-date cutoff is the baseline: only firms registered after it are reported, and poll_watchlist slides the cutoff forward so each new firm surfaces once. A retired CAEN Rev.2 code (6201) also watches its Rev.3 successor (6210), with a warning.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	CAEN activity code to watch (e.g. '6210'); a retired Rev.2 code also watches its Rev.3 successor.
`county`	No	Optional county name to scope the watch to (diacritic-insensitive); omit to watch nationwide.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	true when the watch is in place.
`asOf`	No	What to cite: registry (ONRC snapshot date), financialYear (fiscal year of the figures), anaf (day of the ANAF data), snapshot, published, source.
`error`	No	Set only when there is no answer (empty_query, invalid_cui, data_unavailable, plan_required ...); such a call is not counted.
`watch`	No	kind, target, owner (key prefix), county, baseline.
`message`	No	A sentence for the caller.
`warnings`	No	Notes on how the request was read (a clamped limit, a widened CAEN code, an ignored field).
`attribution`	No	The credit line to keep when redistributing the data (CC BY 4.0).
`alreadyWatching`	No	true when you already held this watch (nothing changed).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3Oct 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / attribution

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The credit line to keep when redistributing the data (CC BY 4.0).",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: the registration-date baseline cutoff, the dedup guarantee that each firm surfaces once, and the retired Rev.2 → Rev.3 alias with a warning. It doesn't cover watch lifetime or how to remove the watch, hence not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the cutoff/polling mechanics, then the edge case alias. No filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, cutoff semantics, dedup, and the alias edge case; only watch lifecycle/auth requirements are unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'code' and 'county' are documented, including diacritic-insensitivity and nationwide default. The description's note about retired Rev.2 codes restates what the schema already says, adding no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Watch a CAEN activity code') plus the scope ('for newly registered firms'), which cleanly separates it from watch_company (single firm) and unwatch. An agent can identify what is being created without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the workflow relationship to poll_watchlist ('slides the cutoff forward so each new firm surfaces once'), which tells the agent when this tool's output will be consumed. It stops short of an explicit when-not/exclusion rule against the sibling watch tools, so it lands at clear context without routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server