Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

datasets_pitchbook_advisors_item

Retrieve a PitchBook advisor by ID from the dataset, returning profile details such as name, service type, headquarters, founding year, contact, deals, FAQs, and data tables. A missing ID returns 404.

Instructions

Get a PitchBook advisor from dataset. Returns one PitchBook advisor from the dataset by id, such as 676215-64. The record has name, description, service type, headquarters, founding year, website, contact, overview fields, serviced companies and deals, FAQs and data tables. An id not in the dataset returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPitchBook advisor id, e.g. 676215-64

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by enumerating the record's contents (name, description, service type, headquarters, founding year, website, contact, overview fields, companies/deals, FAQs, data tables) and disclosing the not-found behavior (404), but it says nothing about permissions, response shape, or whether the nested sections are always present.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and the id example in the first sentence; the record-contents sentence is a long list but each item is informative. No wasted framing sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the input format, the returned field inventory, and the failure mode, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps (nested sub-resource availability, auth) remain.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented with the same example format. The description only repeats the example ('676215-64'), adding no semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a PitchBook advisor from dataset') and clarifies it returns exactly one record by `id`, which contrasts with the sibling datasets_pitchbook_advisors_search and the separate pitchbook_advisor tool. It never explicitly names those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'by id' framing implies this is the detail lookup you use after finding an id via search, and the 404 note tells the agent the id must come from the dataset rather than an arbitrary lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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