Skip to main content
Glama

GP Intel

by io.github.gparientee

Search PE exits across all firms

search_exits
Read-only

Cross-firm exit search the per-firm tools cannot do: filter REALISED exits across ALL European PE firms by year (or range), exit route, sector and geography. Set group_by to count instead of list, e.g. group_by='exit_type' with year=2026 answers 'how many continuation-vehicle exits in 2026 across Europe'. exit_type 'Continuation Vehicle' covers continuation funds, strip sales and GP-led tender offers. Buyer names and MOIC stay locked unless authenticated as Pro.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gpNoOptional: restrict to one PE firm by name
geoNoCompany geography filter, e.g. 'France' (exact, case-insensitive)
yearNoExact exit year, e.g. 2026
buyerNoPro only: filter exits to a specific buyer (acquirer). Ignored for anonymous callers.
limitNoPage size for list mode (max 50)
offsetNoPagination offset for list mode
sectorNoSector filter, e.g. 'Healthcare' (exact, case-insensitive)
year_toNoExit year range end (ignored if year is set)
group_byNoReturn counts grouped by this dimension instead of a list of exits
exit_typeNoExit route. 'Continuation Vehicle' = continuation funds / strip sales / GP-led tender offers
year_fromNoExit year range start (ignored if year is set)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra context. It does so by noting 'Buyer names and MOIC stay locked unless authenticated as Pro' and clarifies the 'Continuation Vehicle' exit_type scope. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three sentences long: the first defines scope, the second provides a usage example, and the third clarifies a nuanced terminology. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main filtering dimensions, aggregation mode, access restrictions, and a key terminology nuance. Although it does not describe the exact return format, the schema thoroughly documents parameters, and pagination is handled in schema descriptions. This is nearly complete for a read-only search tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by demonstrating group_by with a concrete example and explaining the 'Continuation Vehicle' exit_type, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Cross-firm exit search the per-firm tools cannot do' and specifies filtering 'REALISED exits across ALL European PE firms by year (or range), exit route, sector and geography.' This is a specific verb-plus-resource and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling per-firm tools.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by contrasting with per-firm tools and provides a concrete example with group_by and year to answer a specific question. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for when to choose this tool.

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

All GP Intel toolsInspect
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

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.

Resources