Fetch one crawled PitchBook investor record by dataset id. Use datasets_pitchbook_investors_search to find investors or datasets_pitchbook_investors_facets to inspect filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | PitchBook investor id, e.g. 294471-37. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral signal by calling the record 'crawled', implying snapshot/cached provenance rather than live data, though it says nothing about freshness, pagination, or auth needs.
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 sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first states the action and key, the second routes to the correct siblings. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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?
For a one-parameter item fetch with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no gap remains.
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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter already carries a format example ('294471-37.'). The description only restates that the lookup is keyed by dataset id, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), a precise resource (one crawled PitchBook investor record), and the keying mechanism (by dataset id). It also names the sibling tools for the adjacent jobs, so an agent can distinguish this item lookup from search and facets without opening any schema.
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 routes the agent: use datasets_pitchbook_investors_search to find investors and datasets_pitchbook_investors_facets to inspect filters. Both the when-to-use-this and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated, leaving nothing to inference.
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.
