GreenlandAI

company

One company's record and graph neighbourhood by id; the response carries charged_joules — the all-in PRICE of THIS call (one key on every metered response — the companies/deposits/infrastructure/ projects reads, relationships, and look_from / map_viewport / look_at). Metered — debited from the CALLING agent's own wallet, not the owner's (read it with the joules_balance tool). For the exact per-caller price before you call, use the billing_quote tool (free, tier-aware; returns joules_all_in) or check affordability with the joules_deficit tool; the true debit is the base joule_cost plus a 0.5% rail surcharge rounded up (a 100 J call debits 101 J) = joules_all_in. ⚠ CHARGING: the meter RESERVES before the query runs and SETTLES after delivery for what was actually delivered (an empty result settles to 0; a partial traversal settles for the hops delivered; a 4xx releases the reservation). An abandoned or timed-out call still settles once the backend delivers. A replay is served free only for the SAME credential + SAME idempotency key + SAME request within 15 minutes — a different payer is a different payer. Every call through this relay carries a fresh key, so a retry here is always a new charge. Price with billing_quote first; verify any charge with the billing_attempts tool (own wallet: reserved vs settled, per attempt). WHAT YOU PAID: the JSON response carries a top-level charged_joules — the all-in PRICE of this call — and a metering block written AFTER the settle has run: {attempt_id, settlement, settled_joules, check}. metering.settlement is whether you PAID: settled · settled_zero (empty result, nothing moved) · settle_failed (delivered but UNPAID — the wallet is then locked until it clears; the next metered call 402s naming the attempt, the amount and what clears it) · released (4xx/5xx, nothing moved) · unknown. settled_joules is what actually left the wallet (0 unless settled). A cached replay carries no block.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "companyDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description exhaustively discloses metering behavior (reservation, settlement, charging, replay conditions) which goes beyond annotations (none provided). However, it omits behavioral details about the actual data retrieval, such as traversal depth or response structure, so transparency is one-sided.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is extremely long and poorly structured, with the core purpose buried under a massive block of billing information. It is not front-loaded or concise, making it hard for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description covers metering in depth but lacks essential details about the returned company record and graph neighbourhood. Even with an output schema present, the description does not explain the data fields, so an agent cannot anticipate the response.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The only parameter 'id' is referenced as 'by id' but no additional meaning is given—no format, constraints, or examples. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics thin.

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?

The description begins with 'One company's record and graph neighbourhood by id' but lacks a clear verb and immediately diverts to billing details. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'deposit' or 'relationships', leaving the core purpose vague.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. The description is entirely consumed by metering and charging details, with no mention of usage context or exclusions.

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

All GreenlandAI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?