get_investor_profile
按机构ID查询投资机构画像，包括投资案例数、最近投资时间和活跃行业摘要。
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| investor_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
IT桔子 MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. The name implies a query, so it is partially transparent.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or separate lines) that could improve readability for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it does mention them. However, it fails to explain the 'fields' parameter or any prerequisites, leaving the tool partially incomplete for an agent.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the investor_id parameter (by organization ID) but provides no explanation for the 'fields' parameter, which is an array of strings. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.
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 the tool queries investor profile by organization ID, listing specific fields returned (investment cases count, recent investment time, active industry summary). This is a specific verb+resource, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like search_investors or get_company_profile.
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 tool versus alternatives such as search_investors or get_company_profile. The description only states what it does without specifying context or exclusions.
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.