get_api_v1_search_companiessearch companies (all filters available) Group: Search. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | ||
| geoUrn | No | geos ID | |
| hasJobs | No | are these companies have Job listings on LinkedIn | |
| keyword | No | ||
| industry | No | industries ID | |
| companySize | No | company sizes can be one or multiple of " 1-10 or 11-50 or 51-200 or 201-500 or 501-1000 or 1001-5000 or 5001-10,000 or 10,001+" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavior such as output format, pagination, or any side effects. It only states billing cost, which is not behavioral transparency.
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 extremely brief, which makes it concise but at the expense of informativeness. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks the necessary substance to be considered well-structured.
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?
With six optional parameters and no explanation of how they interact or what the search returns, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for a user to effectively invoke the tool.
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?
The schema provides terse descriptions like 'geos ID' and 'industries ID', but these are cryptic and do not explain the actual meaning or format. The description adds no further clarification, leaving parameters ambiguous.
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 tool searches companies, and the verb 'search' combined with the resource 'companies' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_people, search_posts, etc.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description mentions 'all filters available' but does not explain when to use this tool versus other search tools, nor does it provide context on typical use cases or parameter combinations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.