who_ownsFind who owns a company: its current private equity owner(s) and the full ownership history (entry years, exits with year and route). Covers 21,000+ companies held by European PE firms, hand-verified. Use for questions like 'who owns X' or 'X parent company'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Company name or gp-intel.com company slug, e.g. 'Bark.com' or 'bark-com' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only; description adds that data covers 21,000+ hand-verified companies and includes comprehensive history, providing useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words; front-loaded with core function, then scope and usage examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes output (current owners + history) despite no output schema; covers scope and verification. Lacks error handling but adequate for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes the 'company' parameter fully (name or slug); description reinforces this but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it finds current PE owners and full ownership history for a company, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gp_exits or search_companies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit use cases are given ('who owns X' or 'X parent company'), but no explicit exclusions; however, the context from sibling tools makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.