Skip to main content
Glama

Chain Won Tender Company Count

chain_won_tender_company_num

基于具体地区(国家,省份,城市,区县)以及具体产业链名称近两年有中标的企业数量查询(合并返回总量/生产型/销售型/依赖型文本)。 涉及指标/类型:近两年有中标的企业数量;生产型近两年有中标的企业数量;销售型近两年有中标的企业数量;依赖型近两年有中标的企业数量 不包含:其他企业分类的统计;企业名单明细 典型问法:2024年全国集成电路近两年有中标的企业有多少;成都市新能源产业链近两年有中标的企业数量;海淀区人工智能近两年有中标的企业有多少家

Pricing: {"unit": "credits", "billing_model": "per_run", "per_run": 100, "unit_description": "optional"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo统计年份,如 2024;可选。
regionYes地区名称,如「全国」「成都」「北京市海淀区」。
chain_nameYes产业链或节点名称,如「集成电路」「新能源」「人工智能」。

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText or Markdown response. Includes merged results for total / product / sales / dependency company counts. Also used for in-progress, failed, cancelled, or waiting-user messages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

描述说明了返回的是文本形式(合并返回总量/生产型/销售型/依赖型文本),并列出涉及指标,但未披露具体行为如年份参数的具体影响(是否覆盖固定两年还是可指定)、无数据时的返回、是否需要权限等。openWorldHint标注未增强描述,且描述未补充额外行为细节,因此处于中等水平。

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?

描述包含指标列表和典型问法,信息量足但结构稍显冗长:开头和指标部分有重复,且价格信息混入描述中,分散注意力。虽然整体清晰,但并非特别精炼,故给3分。

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

Completeness4/5

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

工具参数少(3个),有输出schema和openWorldHint,描述提供了典型问法、排除项和指标明细,足够指导基本用法。尽管未详细说明年份处理,但考虑到复杂度低,描述整体已较为完整,故得4分。

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema对三个参数的描述覆盖100%(region、chain_name、year),描述本身未添加额外信息,如year的默认行为或格式要求。典型问法提供了一些示例,但不足以弥补对参数语义的深度解释,因此维持基线3分。

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?

描述明确说明工具用于查询近两年有中标的企业数量,基于地区和产业链,并列举了返回的指标类型(总量/生产型/销售型/依赖型)。它清晰地定义了资源和操作,且通过典型问法展示用法。但未显式区分同族的列表工具(如chain_won_tender_company_list),因此未达到5分。

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?

描述提供了典型问法示例和排除项(不包含企业名单明细),隐含了使用场景,但未明确说明何时用此工具而非列表工具或何时用其他筛选条件。缺少显式的替代方案指引,如'当需要数量时使用此工具,需要名单时使用列表工具'。故仅得3分。

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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with consistent scopes (e.g., chain_* vs park_* vs company_* vs gov_data_*). The list/num pairs are clearly differentiated. A few overlapping concepts exist (e.g., company_patent vs enterprise_change_innovation) but descriptions clarify the angle. Some typos (company_randomin_spection) don't cause ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a mostly predictable snake_case pattern with prefixes indicating domain (chain_, park_, company_, enterprise_change_, gov_data_, poi_data_, business_surrounding_, cbd_surrounding_). Most tools use <prefix>_<entity>_<action> or <prefix>_<subject>. A few outliers (sg_chokepoint, tariff_calc, corporate_exception_report) deviate but are few and recognizable.

Tool Count1/5

With 198 tools, this is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server. It exceeds even the 'extreme mismatch' threshold of 50+ tools. The large number makes selection and discoverability challenging, despite good internal organization.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a vast range of enterprise data, regional macro stats, POI details, supply chain analysis, and tariffs. It appears to cover the primary domain comprehensively, with only minor potential gaps (e.g., no direct tool for company debt ratings or specific product catalogs, but these are addressed via enterprise_change_* and company_* tools).

Resources