Look up a U.S. business by name using KnowFirm public records. Returns informational data for research or verification; costs 1 credit and is not a compliance decision.
Look up a U.S. business by name. Uses 1 KnowFirm credit. Public-record data is informational, not a compliance decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits absent from structured fields: a cost of 1 KnowFirm credit and a data-provenance disclaimer that results are informational rather than compliance-grade. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior when a name 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose; the credit cost and the informational disclaimer each earn their place by telling the agent something it cannot get from the schema or annotations. No padding.
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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and data limitations, which is a reasonable minimum. It still leaves the agent guessing about match semantics and what to do when no record is found, and never acknowledges the sibling tool.
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% — the single 'name' property carries no description. The description compensates partially by stating the value is a U.S. business name, adding scope and meaning beyond the bare property name, but it gives no format guidance (legal name vs. DBA, partial matches, casing).
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 with a clear scope qualifier ('Look up a U.S. business by name'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the sibling business_search, leaving the lookup-vs-search distinction to inference.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The phrase 'by name' hints at single-record lookup rather than search, and the credit cost implicitly signals this is a deliberate, metered action, but no explicit routing guidance to business_search is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed