Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

datasets_pitchbook_investors_item

Retrieve a PitchBook investor by ID to access its name, description, type, status, headquarters, investment and exit counts, portfolio, contact details, website, FAQs, and data tables.

Instructions

Get a PitchBook investor from dataset. Returns one PitchBook investor from the dataset by id, such as 294471-37. The record has name, description, investor type, status, headquarters, investment, portfolio and exit counts, contact and website, FAQs and data tables. An unknown id returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPitchBook investor id, e.g. 294471-37

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses error behavior ('An unknown id returns 404') and enumerates the returned fields, which is real added value. However it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature beyond the weak implication of 'Get'.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the field enumeration, and no wasted preamble. The middle sentence's field list is somewhat long but is genuinely informative given there is no output schema.

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 simple single-parameter item lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the record contents and the 404 behavior. The main remaining gap is that it never routes the agent to the search tool for discovering valid ids.

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% for the single `id` parameter, and the schema already supplies the example '294471-37', so the description's example adds nothing new. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 (Get) and resource (PitchBook investor), and pins the scope to a single record retrieved by `id`, which implicitly separates it from the _search and _facets siblings. It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 fetch-one-after-search tool, but the description never states when to use it versus datasets_pitchbook_investors_search or pitchbook_investor. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving usage to inference.

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