Find suppliers by fuzzy name search to retrieve supplier IDs before placing orders. Use this to identify correct vendors and avoid ordering errors.
Find suppliers by name (fuzzy). Use before ordering, to get the supplier ID.
Args: query: Part of the supplier's name, e.g. "herc rentals". limit: Maximum rows (1-50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by specifying fuzzy name matching and the maximum row range, though it does not discuss result ordering or response shape, which is acceptable because an output schema exists.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded with the tool purpose and usage context, then documents the two parameters compactly. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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 read-only lookup tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, usage timing, fuzzy matching, both parameters, and limit bounds. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that.
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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: query is a partial supplier name with an example, and limit is the maximum rows with a 1-50 range. It omits the default limit value, but that is already present in 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 states a specific verb and resource: find suppliers by name using fuzzy matching. It also clarifies the downstream purpose, getting the supplier ID before ordering, so an agent can distinguish this lookup tool from sibling purchase-order and supplier-management tools.
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 gives clear usage context: use before ordering to obtain the supplier ID. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but there is no obvious sibling supplier-search alternative listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.