IT桔子 MCP

search_events

按时间、行业、标签、轮次等条件分页查询事件。event_type 表示物理来源：invse 融资/轮次事件、merger 并购事件；event_category 表示业务分类：investment 投资轮次、listing 上市相关、merger 并购；is_underwater 可筛选未披露水下事件，尝鲜版和标准版不可查看水下事件明细。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cities`	No
`cursor`	No
`fields`	No
`tag_ids`	No
`date_end`	No
`location`	No
`page_size`	No
`provinces`	No
`round_ids`	No
`scope_ids`	No
`date_start`	No
`event_type`	No
`is_underwater`	No
`sub_scope_ids`	No
`event_category`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / is_underwater

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Is Underwater"
+}

First observedJul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses meaning of three parameters (event_type, event_category, is_underwater) and the pagination behavior is implicit. It does not mention read-only status, side effects, rate limits, or other important behaviors for a complex search tool.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it combines parameter explanations inline, which could be structured more clearly (e.g., bullet points or separate explanation section).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It only covers a few parameters and gives high-level purpose; missing parameter details, behavioral notes, and output format context. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it for completeness.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only explains 3 out of 15 parameters (event_type, event_category, is_underwater) and vaguely mentions filters like 'by time, industry, tag, round' without linking to specific parameter names. The remaining 12 parameters are entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this tool searches/querys events with pagination by various criteria (time, industry, tag, round). It differentiates event_type and event_category, providing a clear purpose distinct from sibling tools like search_companies.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company_funding_events or aggregate_funding_by_tags. The only usage hint is the restriction on underwater events for trial/standard versions, but overall lacks clear when/when-not instructions.

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

All IT桔子 MCP tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

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.

search_events

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources