Search company records by name or domain fragment to retrieve matching domains with observation recency, identifying known companies and the freshness of their data.
Search known companies by keyword (name or domain fragment). Returns matched domains with observation recency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Name or domain fragment, e.g. 'hubspot' or 'stripe' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only search over known companies and that results contain matched domains with observation recency. It does not mention result limits, sorting, minimum query length, or what happens with no matches, so transparency is adequate but not rich.
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 communicates the operation, input kind, and return content without wasted words.
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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, what input it takes, and what it returns. It would be more complete if it described the shape or cardinality of results, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it.
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 schema already documents the single query parameter with a clear description and examples, so coverage is 100%. The tool description restates that the query is a name or domain fragment, adding no significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 specifies a concrete action—searching known companies by keyword—and identifies the input as name or domain fragment. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like revnuvo_get_company or revnuvo_search_signals, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 keyword (name or domain fragment)' gives a clear condition for when to call this tool, and 'known companies' scopes the search space. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer a sibling such as revnuvo_get_company or revnuvo_search_signals instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.