Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

vc_portfolio

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — A VC firm's portfolio companies, each matched to the network and rated. Filter publishes_api=true (companies that actually ship an API — about 37% of any book), in_network=true, band, or min_score; sort by score (default), api_count, or name. The demand-side view of who a fund has backed. Understanding plan. Priced per result — $0.005 per request plus $0.0002 per record returned (less past 100), capped at $0.50 a request, under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. Estimate first at /api/v1/prices/estimate. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandNoRating bands: exemplar, strong, developing, thin, minimal.
pageNo
slugYes
sortNo
limitNo
contextNoOptional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.
min_scoreNo
in_networkNo
is_providerNoOnly portfolio companies with a provider profile on the network. Nearly every row qualifies (a profile is created for each portfolio company), so this barely narrows anything — use publishes_api instead.
publishes_apiNoOnly portfolio companies that publish an API indexed on the network — the real rate is about 37% of a book, not 100%. This is the filter you want for "how much of this fund ships an API".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / is_provider / description
      Previous value: -"Only portfolio companies that publish an API on the network."New value: +"Only portfolio companies with a provider profile on the network. Nearly every row qualifies (a profile is created for each portfolio company), so this barely narrows anything — use publishes_api instead."
    • addedInput schema / properties / publishes_api
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only portfolio companies that publish an API indexed on the network — the real rate is about 37% of a book, not 100%. This is the filter you want for \"how much of this fund ships an API\".",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with (it is a query tool). The description adds useful behavioral context about pricing (per-result and per-record costs, caps) and the 'context' parameter, which is read only for diagnostics, not ranking. This goes beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination or response format, which are not covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise but includes detailed pricing information that may be better placed elsewhere. It front-loads the filtering and sorting purpose, but the pricing block is long and could be trimmed or moved to a separate pricing note. Overall, it's informative but not tightly structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering/sorting and pricing but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The annotations provide readOnlyHint but no other context. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for an agent needing full operational details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, but the description compensates by clarifying key parameters like publishes_api (with a real rate of ~37%) and is_provider (nearly all rows qualify). It also explains the 'context' parameter's purpose and that it never influences results. This adds meaning beyond the schema for several parameters, bridging the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists a VC firm's portfolio companies and provides filtering/sorting options. It distinguishes itself as the demand-side view but does not explicitly name a sibling tool it differs from, though siblings like get_vc and find_vcs exist. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context on when to use it (e.g., to filter by publishes_api, in_network, etc.) and hints at the demand-side view, but does not explicitly contrast with other tools like get_vc or find_vcs. It lacks clear guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist for other use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All apis-io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources