Investor profile: deal count, companies backed, stage mix, portfolio and recent deals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Investor display name, e.g. "Accel" or "High-Tech Gründerfonds (HTGF)" | |
| compact | No | Lean profile to save context: top 15 portfolio companies by €, top co-investors, no year-by-year breakdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / compactAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Lean profile to save context: top 15 portfolio companies by €, top co-investors, no year-by-year breakdown",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about the contents of the returned profile (deal count, companies backed, stage mix, etc.), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not mention behavior like error handling, pagination, or any limitations. Given the annotations already declare safety, the description provides modest additional 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, listing key data points without filler or repetition.
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?
The description lists the key output categories, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it lacks details on how to use the tool (e.g., providing an investor name) and does not address the 'compact' parameter's effect. The tool is simple with good schema coverage, so this is adequate but not rich.
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% with both parameters ('name' and 'compact') already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional explanation of parameters, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 conveys that this tool provides an investor profile with specific data fields (deal count, companies backed, stage mix, portfolio, recent deals). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_company' and 'search_investors' by focusing on a single investor's detailed profile, though the verb 'get' is only implicit in the tool name rather than explicit in the description.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_investors' or 'find_companies'. The description does not state that this is for retrieving a specific investor's details or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.