list_companies列出已发布的一人公司主页（最新优先）。可选 q 关键词命中名称 / 定位。
【何时用】用户想浏览「有哪些一人公司」或按关键词找公司。drill-down 用 get_company。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | 关键词，命中公司名称 / 一句话定位；不传则按最新列出 | |
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 24，最多 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
注释已声明 readOnlyHint、idempotentHint、openWorldHint 和 destructiveHint=false，覆盖了安全画像。描述额外补充了「已发布」「最新优先」的排序范围，但没有说明返回格式或分页行为，因此只算部分披露。
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?
描述极其精简：第一句说明核心行为，第二句给出使用时机和替代工具，没有任何冗余。关键信息前置，便于 agent 快速理解。
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?
对于两个可选参数、无输出 schema 的只读列表工具，描述结合 schema 与注释已足够完整。排序方式、过滤范围、使用场景和 drill-down 路径都已覆盖，agent 能正确选择并调用。
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 对 q 和 limit 的说明覆盖率为 100%，描述中对 q 的说明与 schema 基本重复，未显著增加信息量。在 schema 已承担参数文档职责的情况下，不额外加分符合基线。
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?
描述使用明确动词和资源：「列出已发布的一人公司主页」，并补充了「最新优先」的排序行为。它还明确指向 get_company 作为 drill-down 工具，使 agent 能清楚地区分列表与详情查询。
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?
描述明确给出使用场景：用户想浏览「有哪些一人公司」或按关键词找公司。同时明确指出 drill-down 应使用 get_company，提供了直接的替代工具路由，没有留出推断空间。
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 has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.