Look up a single Ecuadorian company in the Superintendencia de Compañías registry by expediente number or RUC to get its expediente, RUC, and registered name.
Get one company from the Ecuador registry (Superintendencia de Compañías) by expediente number or RUC: expediente, RUC and registered name. 5 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Expediente or RUC. e.g. 7154 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a cost signal ('5 point per returned record') and that exactly one record is returned, but omits permissions, rate limits, and failure behavior when the identifier is not found.
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?
Two compact clauses with the primary action front-loaded, then the key forms and returned fields. No filler, though the trailing field list ('expediente, RUC and registered name') is slightly compressed and could be misread as input rather than output.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the registry, the accepted identifier types, the returned fields, and the cost. That is close to sufficient, with only auth/error behavior left unaddressed.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'company' as 'Expediente or RUC. e.g. 7154'. The description restates the same key information without adding format rules or validation guidance, 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 and resource ('Get one company from the Ecuador registry') plus the authoritative source (Superintendencia de Compañías) and the lookup keys. The 'one company' phrasing implicitly separates it from the plural search sibling (run_ec_companies_search), though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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 only implied: the requirement of an expediente or RUC signals this is a single-entity lookup for a known identifier. It never states when to prefer this over run_ec_companies_search or what to do if only a name is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.