company_gaps
A company's weakest investment dimensions — where it is thin. Pro.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
api-evangelist
TDQS
D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the output is 'weakest investment dimensions' and includes 'Pro' (possibly indicating access level), but does not describe side effects, auth requirements, or data freshness.
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?
The description is too brief, providing only a noun phrase and the word 'Pro'. While concise in length, it lacks substantive information and does not efficiently convey required context.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain both input semantics and result structure. It fails to do so, leaving the agent unable to determine valid inputs or expected output format.
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 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what a slug represents (e.g., company identifier), how to format it, or where to find it.
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 states it returns 'a company's weakest investment dimensions', but lacks an action verb like 'get' or 'list'. The phrase 'Pro' is ambiguous. Compared to sibling tools like 'find_company_insights' and 'insights_dimensions', it does not clearly distinguish its specific purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_company_insights' or 'insights_dimensions'). There is no context about prerequisites, input slug meaning, or expected use cases.
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.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, reducing ambiguity. However, some overlap exists between search tools like 'find_posts' and 'search_api_evangelist', though they target different scopes (stories vs. unified search). Overall, an agent can reasonably differentiate them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_areas, get_post), but several use noun_noun or inconsistent prefixes (e.g., api_coverage, company_gaps, insights_adoption). This inconsistency can confuse pattern recognition, though the pattern is still readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 56 tools, the server is overloaded for a typical MCP context. While the domain is broad, the sheer number risks agent confusion and selection errors. Calibration suggests 25+ tools are excessive, and this server far exceeds that threshold.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of API governance, search, analysis, and generation tasks. There are no obvious dead ends for navigating the API Evangelist network, though some areas (e.g., direct API creation) are intentionally out of scope. Minor consolidation could improve efficiency.