get_company
Structured company record.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
StackResolve
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about mutability, permissions, errors, data source, or return behavior. 'Structured company record' does not even explicitly state that the tool returns or retrieves data.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It contains no useful structure or detail beyond a noun phrase.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and overlapping sibling tools such as get_profile and research_company, a three-word description is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool confidently. It does not explain what data is returned or what distinguishes this lookup from nearby alternatives.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the required 'domain' parameter or clarify what values it accepts. The schema only states it is a string, so the agent gets no added meaning from the description.
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 is a noun phrase, 'Structured company record,' which essentially restates the tool name without a verb or explicit action. It does not differentiate get_company from siblings like research_company, get_profile, or compare_companies.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus related tools. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name alone.
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
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
resolve and find_tools_for_task both return ranked tool recommendations for a task, and how_to also surfaces recommendedTools, making their boundaries unclear. search_tools adds further overlap as a registry search by query and requirements. The company/research and registry lookup tools are more distinct, but the task-to-tool cluster is genuinely confusing.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is almost entirely snake_case verb_noun: get_company, find_competitors, search_tools, compare_products, list_registry. The exceptions are audit and resolve as bare verbs and how_to as an idiom, but they are still recognizable.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a reasonable range, and the broad scope of registry lookup, research, comparison, audit, and interface generation supports a larger surface. However, find_tools_for_task largely duplicates resolve, so the count is slightly higher than necessary.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main registry lifecycle: listing, searching, getting records, comparing, researching, pricing, readiness auditing, and generating agent interfaces. It is intentionally read/research-oriented, so the lack of registry CRUD is not a severe gap. Minor missing pieces like direct per-product OpenAPI retrieval or registry entry management are workable around.