Query partner roster, headquarters (Quebec), sector focus, and fund benchmarks for Inovia.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools target distinct resources: firm-level detail, keyword search, and Mode VC's own thesis. The only mild overlap is that get_mode_vc_thesis_and_criteria could be mistaken for a special case of get_investor_details, but descriptions clarify the boundary.
All names use snake_case with a verb_noun structure (get_investor_details, get_mode_vc_thesis_and_criteria, search_investors). The second name is unusually long and compound, but the convention itself is consistent.
Three tools for an atlas of 3,650+ firms and 13,000+ partners is on the thin side. A single search tool and a single detail tool may cover core lookups, but the surface feels minimal for the domain's breadth.
Core read operations (search firms/partners, get firm profile, get Mode VC criteria) are present, but there is no partner-level detail tool, no fund-level view, and no way to list sectors or stages independently. Agents can work around this via search filters, but notable gaps remain.
Retrieves the complete verified profile for a specific venture capital firm, including its team of partners, active funds, website, and portfolio focus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug_or_name | Yes | Firm slug or exact name (e.g. "andreessen-horowitz", "sequoia-capital", "accel", "406-ventures") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the profile is 'verified' and returns partners/funds/website/portfolio focus, but it doesn't discuss error behavior for unknown slugs, data freshness, or what 'verified' means operationally. That is modest added value over annotations, consistent with a 3.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerations of returned sections are useful rather than redundant. Slightly more routing context would be needed for a 5.
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?
For a read-only, single-parameter, idempotent lookup with no output schema and rich schema coverage, the description gives enough to understand what comes back (partners, funds, website, focus) and how to address a firm. Missing only explicit search-vs-get guidance, which is a minor but real gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with examples in both slug and name form. The description does not add syntax or matching guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('complete verified profile for a specific venture capital firm') and enumerates the included sections (partners, funds, website, portfolio focus). It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_investors, which implies listing/searching rather than fetching one firm's full profile.
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 implies usage for fetching a single firm's profile but does not state when to use this versus search_investors or other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list suggests a search-vs-get distinction, but the description never makes that routing explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns Mode VC's investment parameters: $1M–$5M initial ticket sizes, San Francisco Bay Area mandate, evaluation framework, and direct pitch routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds meaningful content context by naming what the payload contains (ticket range, Bay Area mandate, criteria, routing), but says nothing about freshness of the thesis data or response shape.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with an enumerable payload and zero filler; every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at a summary level. It could note whether the returned thesis is cached/static or how comprehensive the criteria detail is, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Mode VC's investment parameters') and even enumerates the payload: ticket sizes, geography mandate, evaluation framework, pitch routing. An agent can tell this is a static fund-profile lookup. It stops short of naming which sibling it is not (e.g., get_investor_details), so it does not fully earn a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_investor_details for individual partners. The phrase 'direct pitch routing' hints at an outcome but is not framed as a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search 3,650+ institutional venture capital firms and 13,000+ partners from the Mode VC Investor Atlas. Filter by firm name, partner name, sector, stage, or geography.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (max 50) | |
| query | No | Name of the firm or individual partner (e.g. "a16z", "Benchmark", "Marc Andreessen", "Khosla") | |
| stage | No | Target investment stage | |
| sector | No | Target sector, e.g. "ai-and-data", "dev-tools-and-infra", "enterprise-software", "fintech", "crypto", "healthtech", "climate", "consumer" | |
| location | No | Geographic hub, e.g. "california", "new-york", "massachusetts", "toronto", "united-states" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful framing beyond the annotations by naming the backing dataset and its size, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination across the 3,650+ corpus, or what fields come back.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the corpus scope front-loaded and the filter dimensions following. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly. The only mild gap is absence of any hint about result volume, ranking, or pagination behavior.
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%, so every parameter including enums and the limit cap is already documented. The description's list of filter dimensions largely restates the schema, adding only the implicit note that 'query' spans both firm names and partner names. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.
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?
Specific verb (Search) plus concrete resource (institutional VC firms and partners) with a quantified corpus (3,650+ firms, 13,000+ partners) and named source (Mode VC Investor Atlas). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_investor_details or search_charts.
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 phrase 'Filter by firm name, partner name, sector, stage, or geography' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no pointer to the sibling that returns full detail for a single firm (get_investor_details). Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_investor_detailsget_mode_vc_thesis_and_criteriasearch_investorsQuery partner roster, headquarters (Quebec), sector focus, and fund benchmarks for BDC Venture.
Query partner roster, headquarters (California), sector focus, and fund benchmarks for 8VC in.
Query partner roster, headquarters (California), sector focus, and fund benchmarks for TCV in.
Query partner roster, headquarters (California), sector focus, and fund benchmarks for.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.