查询企业对外投资案例，按组织关系归并公司和机构投资主体；适合回答某赛道企业做过哪些对外投资，例如具身智能企业投了哪些公司；高权限套餐可查看未披露水下事件标识。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| date_end | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| round_ids | No | ||
| date_start | No | ||
| is_underwater | No | ||
| investor_tag_ids | No | ||
| target_scope_ids | No | ||
| investor_scope_ids | No | ||
| investor_company_ids | No | ||
| target_sub_scope_ids | No | ||
| investor_sub_scope_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / is_underwaterAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Is Underwater"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Mentions that high-permission packages can see undisclosed underwater event markers, which is a useful behavioral note. However, does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or destructive actions (likely read-only). Adds some context but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences covering function, merging behavior, use case, and permission nuance. No fluff, front-loaded with core purpose.
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?
Tool has 13 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions. Description is too brief to guide usage of these parameters. Output schema exists but does not help with input. Leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description does not explain any parameter individually; only hints at 'underwater' via permissions. Does not compensate for lack of schema descriptions, making it hard for agents to know how to use parameters like round_ids, investor_company_ids, etc.
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?
Description clearly states it queries company outward investment cases, merges by organizational relations, and gives a concrete use case. Verb '查询' + resource '企业对外投资案例' is specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies or get_company_funding_events.
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?
Explicitly says suitable for answering what outward investments a company in a certain track has done, with an example. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context is 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.