Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openpitch-mcp

openpitch-mcp

by Avierovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_metric

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single metric for a company, including its value, confidence score, and sources. Optionally includes historical values.

Instructions

One metric with value/range, confidence, estimate_type, as_of, and sources.

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": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>",
      "metric": "<metric>"
    },
    "name": "get_metric"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metricYes
company_idYes
with_historyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the tool's safe read-only nature clear. The description adds the return fields (value/range, confidence, etc.), which is useful but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or performance impacts.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the brevity leaves gaps.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter effects and output structure more fully. It only lists return fields without connecting them to parameters, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, yet the description does not explain the three parameters (metric, company_id, with_history). It only vaguely mentions the fields returned, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill in parameters.

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 that the tool retrieves a single metric for a company, listing the fields returned. The name 'get_metric' aligns with the description, and it is well-distinguished from sibling tools like search or list_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. It doesn't mention that it's for individual metric retrieval or that search might be used for multiple metrics. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites provided.

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