Skip to main content
Glama

Brief on portfolio sales activity

generate_portfolio_brief

Portfolio oversight: use this when a PE or VC operator wants a written brief on their portfolio companies' sales activity for a period: what Andru's work across the companies found (targets, opportunities, overlaps), each company's public news (launches, customers, partnerships, sales hires, new markets), and the market signals around their buyers, with sources. Not a financial or performance report. Send the companies (name and website, up to 15) or a portfolioId; with neither, Andru suggests the companies on the firm's website for the person to confirm. Takes a few minutes: returns a job_id; call get_asset with it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_portfolio_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteIdNoOptional: the quote_id from quote, to pay the quoted price (held for 30 minutes).
companiesNoThe portfolio companies to brief, up to 15. Saved as a portfolio on your account the first time.
periodEndNoOptional ISO date for the period end. Default: the end of the last full period.
periodTypeNoReporting period type. Default quarterly.
periodStartNoOptional ISO date for the period start. Default: the start of the last full period.
portfolioIdNoA portfolio already on your account (returned by an earlier brief). With companies, they are added to it.
idempotencyKeyNoOptional: any unique string for this call. Retrying with the same key returns the first result and never charges twice.
maxAmountCentsNoOptional: the most this call may cost, in cents. If the price is higher, nothing runs and nothing is charged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxAmountCents
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: the most this call may cost, in cents. If the price is higher, nothing runs and nothing is charged.",
      +  "minimum": 0,
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the run is asynchronous, takes a few minutes, returns a job_id rather than the brief itself, and requires a get_asset follow-up. What it omits is that the call is billed (the quoteId/maxAmountCents/idempotencyKey params imply charging), which is material for a non-read-only tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded after a short 'Portfolio oversight:' marker, and the remaining sentences carry input routing, the exclusion, and the async return path — nothing can be deleted without losing an agent-relevant fact. The dense opening clause is long but not redundant.

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?

With 8 optional params, no output schema, and an async job model, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what the deliverable is, how to supply inputs, and how to retrieve the result. The main residual gap is cost/payment behavior, which is left entirely to schema parameter text.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the two mutually-replacing input modes (companies list up to 15 with name+website, or an existing portfolioId) and the neither-case fallback behavior, which is semantics the schema alone does not supply.

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?

A specific verb-resource pair ('written brief on portfolio companies' sales activity') plus an enumeration of what the brief actually contains (Andru's findings, company news, market signals, sources). The closing exclusion 'Not a financial or performance report' pins it against an obvious near-miss, so an agent can separate it from generate_asset or get_portfolio_readiness_rollup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear triggering scenario (a PE/VC operator wants a written brief for a period) and input routing: companies or portfolioId, with a defined fallback where Andru proposes the firm's website companies for confirmation. It also closes the loop by naming the follow-up call (get_asset with the job_id). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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.