Find Swiss companies registered at a specific address or locality using open data. Input an address to retrieve company registrations with optional result limits.
Search Swiss companies registered at a specific address or locality
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| address | Yes | Address or locality name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the search action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, which are needed for effective agent operation.
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 schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'limit'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the address parameter is for searching, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or search behavior details.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'Swiss companies', with the specific scope 'registered at a specific address or locality'. It distinguishes from the generic sibling 'search_companies' by specifying address-based filtering, though it doesn't explicitly mention that distinction.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_companies' or 'get_company'. The description implies usage for address-based queries but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.