Enrich up to 50 UK companies in one call to get credit risk data: status, R-Score, overdue flags, charges, CCJs, net assets, and suggested credit exposure.
Enrich up to 50 UK companies in one call: status, R-Score, overdue flags, charges, CCJs, net assets and suggested credit exposure each. Pass a list of 8-character company numbers. Unknown numbers come back with found=false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_numbers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose several non-obvious traits: the hard cap of 50 companies, the required 8-character number format, and the partial-failure contract ('Unknown numbers come back with found=false'). It omits whether the call is read-only, any rate limits, credit costs, or result ordering, which keeps it out of the top band.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and batch scope, followed by the input format and the edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description has to carry return-value and safety context. Listing the returned fields effectively substitutes for an output schema, and the found=false contract covers the main edge case; missing details are result ordering and read-only/permission expectations.
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% and the single parameter has only a title ('Company Numbers'), so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the argument is a list of 8-character company numbers and by defining the not-found outcome per entry, adding real meaning beyond the bare array-of-strings 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 gives a concrete verb ('Enrich') plus resource ('UK companies') and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, R-Score, overdue flags, charges, CCJs, net assets, credit exposure). The batch scope ('in one call', 'up to 50') implicitly distinguishes it from the single-company sibling get_company, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'up to 50 ... in one call' signals this is the bulk alternative to per-company lookups, and the required input format is given. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_company or search_companies instead, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.