aeza-mcp

companies_create

Destructive

Create a new company record by submitting legal entity details, registration identifiers, and optional document file IDs to the Aeza API.

Instructions

Create company POST /companies

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "companies_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that the call creates a persistent legal entity record, whether duplicates are rejected, or any permission/verification requirements. No contradiction with annotations, but no added context either.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. The endpoint line carries little agent-usable meaning, so the two lines do not earn their place as guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with a deeply nested, fully required body and no output schema. Given that complexity, a two-word description leaves an agent without the field semantics or behavioral expectations needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter is a nested body with eight required legal fields (name, inn, bik, account, ogrn, address, corrAccount, plus optional kpp/comment) and documentFileIds, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description supplies no field meaning, no format expectations for INN/OGRN/BIK, and no hint that all legal fields are mandatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Create company" restates the tool name companies_create almost verbatim, and the only extra content is the raw endpoint "POST /companies". It confirms a create operation on a company resource but adds no differentiating scope versus companies_update_company or companies_request_kyb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer companies_update_company for existing records, and no note about what kind of company can be created. The agent must infer everything from the sibling name list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server