Skip to main content
Glama

count_closed_companies

按行业、标签、地区、成立年份、发展阶段、公司资质、关闭日期、关闭原因或一级关闭原因统计死亡/关闭公司数量。适合回答某赛道倒闭公司有多少家、某年度关闭公司数量、某原因下关闭公司总数;不要为了计数遍历 search_closed_companies 分页。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citiesNo
keywordNo
tag_idsNo
locationNo
provincesNo
scope_idsNo
is_unicornNo
born_year_endNo
is_horse_clubNo
sub_scope_idsNo
close_date_endNo
tag_match_modeNounion
born_year_startNo
fund_status_idsNo
close_date_startNo
closure_type_idsNo
qualification_type_idsNo
closure_parent_type_idsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist. Description mentions counting by dimensions but does not specify output format (single count vs grouped counts) or other traits. Partially transparent but lacks complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is a single focused paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Efficient but could be structured with bullet points for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has 18 parameters and an output schema, but description omits return value details and parameter mappings. Incomplete for complex input, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). Description lists high-level dimensions (industry, tag, region) but does not map them to specific parameter names (e.g., scope_ids for industry). Does not add precise meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states it counts closed companies by multiple dimensions and distinguishes from sibling search_closed_companies by explicitly saying not to paginate for counting.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage examples and excludes the alternative search_closed_companies. Clearly states when to use: for counting by industry, year, reason, etc.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: counting vs searching vs retrieving profiles vs ranking vs resolving. There is no ambiguity as tools like count_companies and search_companies have clearly separated purposes (count vs list). Even similar tools like search_companies and search_closed_companies are distinguished by company status.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_companies, get_company_profile, resolve_companies) using snake_case consistently. The naming is predictable and clear, with only minor variations like aggregate_funding_by_tags which still starts with a verb.

Tool Count5/5

With 17 tools, the server covers a comprehensive set of operations for a company/funding database without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific need, and the count aligns well with the domain's complexity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major operations for querying companies, funding, investors, events, FA cases, tags, and lookups. It includes both aggregated counts and detailed listings, ranking, and name resolution. No obvious gaps for a read-only data retrieval server.