Retrieve a Danish company's CVR record by registration number or registry URL, including name, status, registration date, address, and legal form.
Get one company from the Denmark registry (CVR) by registration number or registry URL: name, status, registration date, address and legal form. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Registration number or registry URL. e.g. 24256790 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about auth, missing-record behavior, or whether failed lookups are billed.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the returned fields and cost. No filler and nothing to trim.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned attributes (name, status, registration date, address, legal form). Gaps remain around error/not-found behavior for a lookup tool, but the core is complete.
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 100% and the single 'company' parameter is already documented with the same example. The description's 'registration number or registry URL' mirrors the schema rather than adding meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get one company') and resource ('Denmark registry (CVR)') and enumerates the returned fields. The singular 'one company' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling run_dk_companies_search bulk-lookup tool.
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 accepted input (registration number or registry URL) is stated, which implies a direct single-record lookup, but the description never names run_dk_companies_search or any condition for choosing between them. Usage is left to inference from the singular noun.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.