Search PE-backed companies
search_companiesRead-only
Search the 21,000+ PE-backed companies tracked on GP Intel by name.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Company name or fragment |
GP Intel
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. Description adds that search is by name but no other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, sorting, rate limits). Minimal extra value beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, to the point. No redundant words or filler. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
For a simple search tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers core purpose and scope. Lacks mention of result format, pagination, or sorting, but adequate given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'query' has a description). Description mirrors 'by name' for query but adds nothing for 'limit'. Does not compensate for undocumented limit parameter.
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?
Description states 'Search the 21,000+ PE-backed companies tracked on GP Intel by name.' It specifies verb (search), resource (PE-backed companies), and scope (by name, specific database). Clearly differentiates from siblings like search_gps and search_deals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., search_gps, who_owns). Does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a unique purpose: gp_exits and gp_portfolio are per-firm, while search_exits and search_deals are cross-firm, clearly differentiated by scope. search_companies, search_gps, and who_owns cover distinct entity types and actions, leaving no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern for search_* tools and a gp_* prefix for per-firm tools, but who_owns breaks the convention with a question phrase. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not severely impair usability.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain, covering per-firm and cross-firm queries, entity searches, and ownership history without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core private equity data needs: searching firms and companies, viewing portfolios and exits for a specific GP, cross-firm deal and exit searches, and ownership lookup. Minor gaps like detailed company financials are outside the apparent scope.