Skip to main content
Glama

Deal book

deal_book
Read-onlyIdempotent

The deal book of the one team the caller's key reads; every row names that team (team_id, team_name). Without deal_id this lists deals ordered by their ranking window first (financing open, early stage, not confirmed, financing closed, cancelled) and the chosen sort inside it, filterable by stage, window, country_code (ISO country codes), sector, status, eca, eca_named (only deals naming an export credit agency), minimum contract value (min_value_usd), and free text (q); sort by score (default), last_activity, value, or first_seen; paged with limit (default 50, maximum 100) and offset, with the exact total. Dismissed deals are excluded unless status asks for them, and the portfolio rows a desk holds back by default (closed, cancelled, older than the stale window of 18 months by default, own bank, domestic; score_hidden true) are off the page unless include_hidden is true, and score_own_bank marks the rows where your own bank is a lender. A row carrying merged_into was found to be a duplicate and folded into the deal that field names: read that deal instead, and expect this one to be dismissed. Each row carries its window (score_window and its label), the band word and reason count behind its score (score_band, score_reason_count), the confirmed state over its linked findings (state, state_label), the newest quote backed event date (event_date, null when no source stated one), the lender names on the deal (lenders), and the two derived sentences a desk reads first: angle (why the row is on the list) and ask (what is still to be financed, read from the confirmed state, the window, the agencies and the lenders; a row whose state no source confirmed reads State not confirmed by a source yet). With deal_id (the deal_id field of list rows) it returns one deal in full: score_reasons, one plain sentence per scoring component saying which fact it matched, alongside parties carrying entity_id and node_id where bound, the cited timeline with press quotes (each entry also carrying the state its quote confirmed, the confirming passage and the event date), lifecycle events, sources each carrying source_tier (1 a primary source, 2 trade press, 3 an aggregator, which is also where an unclassified publisher lands) and its tier_label, the deal summary (summary_lines: three lines generated from the cited findings by fixed rules, not by a model, each with the finding and quote behind every field it states), the analyst's own next_action, and economics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree-text filter over deal names and summaries.
ecaNoKeep only deals naming this export credit agency.
sortNoRanking, default score.
limitNoPage size, default 50, maximum 100.
stageNoKeep only these lifecycle stages.
offsetNoRows to skip, default 0.
sectorNoKeep only these sectors.
statusNoKeep only these statuses; dismissed deals appear only when asked for here.
windowNoKeep only these ranking windows: financing_open, early_stage, not_confirmed, financing_closed, cancelled.
deal_idNoA deal_id from the list; when present the other arguments are not used.
eca_namedNoKeep only deals naming an export credit agency.
country_codeNoKeep only deals in these ISO country codes.
min_value_usdNoKeep only deals at or above this contract value in USD.
include_hiddenNoAlso serve the rows a desk holds back by default (closed, cancelled, older than the stale window, own bank, domestic); off by default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral context: dismissed-deal exclusion, hidden-portfolio-row defaults, merged_into duplicate handling, null event dates, source tier semantics, and summary_lines generated by fixed rules rather than a model. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is information-dense and nearly every clause matters, but it is a single unbroken paragraph with long enumerations and semicolons. It would be easier for an agent to parse if the list-mode and deal-detail-mode behaviors were separated or bulleted, and the opening sentence is awkwardly phrased.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: list-mode ordering, filtering, pagination, row fields, detail-mode fields, source tiers, edge cases for duplicates and hidden rows, and analyst-facing outputs are all covered. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaningful parameter semantics: deal_id overrides all other arguments, status can reveal dismissed deals, include_hidden unlocks portfolio-held rows, min_value_usd is a floor, sort has a default, and limits/offsets are explained. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field labels.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the resource (the team's deal book) and the two main operations: listing deals or fetching one deal in full with deal_id. It is specific about behavior and return contents, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like portfolio_book.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use each mode: without deal_id it lists/filters/pages; with deal_id it ignores other arguments and returns full deal details. It also explains default exclusions and the include_hidden override, though it never mentions alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources