查询结构化FA服务案例，返回FA机构、被服务公司、融资轮次、金额、时间和行业等信息；高权限套餐可查看未披露水下事件标识。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| fa_ids | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| date_end | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| round_ids | No | ||
| scope_ids | No | ||
| date_start | No | ||
| company_ids | No | ||
| is_underwater | No | ||
| 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?
The description reveals one behavioral aspect: high-authority packages can view underwater events. However, without annotations, it does not explain pagination (cursor, page_size), read-only nature, or other constraints, leaving gaps in transparency.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be better structured by separating the core function from the access control note.
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?
With 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to explain parameter usage or filter mechanics. It covers only a high-level list of returned fields and one feature. The output schema may help, but the description is insufficient for complete understanding.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'is_underwater' via the underwater events mention. Most parameters (cursor, fa_ids, dates, etc.) are undefined, forcing the agent to infer or guess.
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 the tool queries structured FA service cases and returns specified fields (FA institution, serviced company, financing round, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools which focus on companies or investors.
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?
The description implies usage for FA case searches but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_company_investment_cases or search_investor_cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.