Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openpitch-mcp

openpitch-mcp

by Avierovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_companies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare companies on specified metrics using their IDs. See a side-by-side analysis of performance indicators such as ARR and funding.

Instructions

Side-by-side metric comparison across companies.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ids": "<ids>",
      "metrics": "<metrics>"
    },
    "name": "compare_companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes
metricsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or output format).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (2 array parameters), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or expected behavior, leaving crucial gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no details. The description does not explain the meaning or format of the 'ids' and 'metrics' parameters, leaving the agent to guess. For a tool with 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Side-by-side metric comparison across companies.' It uses a specific verb ('compare'), identifies the resource ('companies'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company (single company) and get_metric (single metric).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer context. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools