pitchiq-mcp

pitchiq_v1_brain_graph_query

Traverse the workspace knowledge graph from a specific entity. For wiki_page: returns forward links, backlinks, 5 most similar pages, and CRM entity mentions found in the page text. For contact: returns linked deals, opportunities, tasks, outreach summary, conversation count, and wiki pages mentioning this contact. For deal: returns primary contact, tasks, bookings, conversation count, and wiki pages mentioning this deal. Use this to understand relationships and discover connected information across the workspace. Requires an active workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity_id`	Yes	UUID of the entity to query.
`entity_type`	Yes	The type of entity to traverse from.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It details what is returned for each entity type (e.g., forward links, similar pages, CRM mentions). It does not mention side effects, but the tool is inherently read-only.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured: a concise first sentence stating the purpose, followed by entity-specific details, and a summary sentence. It is slightly lengthy but clear and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (three entity types with different returns), the description is fairly complete. Without an output schema, it explains what is returned for each type. Could mention pagination, but it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the parameters (entity_type, entity_id) influence the traversal and results, providing functional meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool traverses the workspace knowledge graph from a specific entity. It distinguishes behavior for each entity type (wiki_page, contact, deal), which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 says 'Use this to understand relationships and discover connected information,' implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling search tools, lacking exclusions.

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

All pitchiq-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose covering booking, brain access, commerce quoting, and three separate discovery searches (creators, curators, podcasts). No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the pattern 'pitchiq_v1_<category>_<action>', with consistent snake_case and clear categorization (booking, brain, commerce, discover). Actions are descriptive and uniform within categories.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover the server's apparent scope (booking, knowledge graph, discovery) without redundancy or omission. The count is well-scoped for the intended use cases.

Completeness3/5

While booking and discovery are reasonably complete, the brain component lacks write operations (create/update wiki pages), which limits agent ability to modify knowledge. The surface feels slightly incomplete for full workspace management.

Resources

Need Help?