search_adlc_sanctionsSearch the official French competition authority sanction register since 2009 to check if a company name has been financially sanctioned.
Recherche gratuitement dans le jeu officiel des entreprises sanctionnées financièrement par l’Autorité de la concurrence depuis 2009.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_name | 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 must disclose behavior; it adds that the search is free and that the dataset is official and covers sanctions since 2009. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, matching behavior, and the format of returned results, leaving key behavioral traits unexplained.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose and scope.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the dataset and temporal scope but leaves the parameter semantics and return behavior unaddressed, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation.
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?
The single parameter company_name has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions the parameter or explains what value to supply (e.g., legal name, SIREN, partial match). The schema only provides type and minLength, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Recherche') and a precisely scoped resource (the official dataset of companies financially sanctioned by the French Competition Authority since 2009). This distinguishes it from generic company or regulatory tools among the siblings.
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 adverb 'gratuitement' hints at cost and the scope 'depuis 2009' gives temporal bounds, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like route_regulatory_checks or search_judilibre, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the searchable dataset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.