Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

datasets_pitchbook_funds_item

Fetch a PitchBook fund by ID from the dataset to view its name, strategy, status, fund size, vintage, managing firm, contacts, limited partners, and benchmarks.

Instructions

Get a PitchBook fund from dataset. Returns one PitchBook fund from the dataset by id, such as 19719-91F. The record has name, strategy, status, fund size, vintage year, managing firm, contact details and data tables such as limited partners and benchmarks. An id not in the dataset returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPitchBook fund id, e.g. 19719-91F

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 404 behavior for unknown ids and previews the record contents (name, strategy, status, size, vintage, firm, contacts, data tables), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how missing/partial fields behave.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by record contents and error behavior. The opening two sentences partially repeat ('Get a PitchBook fund' / 'Returns one PitchBook fund'), a minor redundancy, but the field list and 404 note each earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and data tables. For a simple single-record lookup this is nearly complete; only permission/error nuance beyond 404 is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single id parameter is already documented. The description adds only the same example id and the 404-on-unknown-id semantics, which is marginal added value - baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PitchBook fund from dataset') and clarifies it's a single-record lookup by id, which distinguishes it from the sibling datasets_pitchbook_funds_search. The example id (`19719-91F`) makes the identity of the record unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied - fetch a fund when you already have its id - but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus the search/facets siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer routing from the name and scope.

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