Look up a New Zealand company in the Companies Register by registration number or registry URL; returns name, status, registration date, address and legal form.
Get one company from the New Zealand registry (Companies Register) 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. 1157956 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (name, status, registration date, address, legal form) and a cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid identifier.
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 tight sentences: the resource and identifiers are front-loaded, followed by the return fields and cost. No filler, and every clause adds information.
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 single-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the source, accepted identifiers, return fields, and cost. It falls short only on behavioral edges (auth, rate limits, invalid-input handling) that an unannotated mutation-free tool would ideally cover.
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%, so the lone 'company' parameter is already documented with format and an example. The description restates the same accepted input types (registration number or registry URL) without adding syntax or validation detail, so 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 New Zealand registry'), lists the exact fields returned, and the phrase 'one company' implicitly contrasts with the sibling run_nz_companies_search. An agent can tell it apart from the search variant without opening either schema.
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 description makes clear an identifier is required ('by registration number or registry URL'), which implies usage, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus run_nz_companies_search, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.