get_company_searchUse the slug or companyId from a result to fetch full details from /company,
the employee list, or the job list. Group: Companies. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of results per page. | |
| start | No | Offset of the first result. Pass the `cursor` value from the previous response to fetch the next page. | |
| keyword | Yes | Free-text search term. |
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, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results contain slug/companyId, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape looks like, how ordering works, or anything about pagination beyond what the schema already says. Billing/group metadata is not meaningful behavioral context.
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 short, but it front-loads secondary follow-up guidance instead of the core search behavior. It should start with something like 'Search companies by keyword', with the downstream slug/companyId usage as secondary context. The Group/Billing line is compact but not central.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is a list, how to page through results, or how to distinguish it from get_company and related detail tools. The only useful addition is the downstream endpoint hint, which is insufficient for confident invocation.
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%: keyword, count, and start all have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 never explicitly says that this tool searches for companies; it immediately pivots to a follow-up instruction ('Use the slug or companyId from a result...'). The primary action is only recoverable from the tool name and title, so the description itself is vague and potentially misleading about what the tool does.
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?
The description gives a workflow hint: results expose slug/companyId that can be used for /company, employee list, or job list endpoints. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools or state when to choose search over the detail tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.