Retrieve a single PitchBook investor record by ID from the pitchbook-investors dataset. Use it to fetch structured investor details for a specific PitchBook identifier.
Get a PitchBook investor from dataset. Returns one crawled PitchBook investor record by id from dataset id enum value pitchbook-investors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | PitchBook investor id, e.g. 294471-37 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that records are 'crawled' and that the tool returns a single record, which gives some context. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., not-found cases), rate limits, or completeness of data, though for a simple getter this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states what is returned, how it is identified, and the dataset source. It could mention behavior when the id is not found, but that is a minor gap for such a focused getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the 'id' parameter already has a clear description with an example. The description adds 'from dataset id enum value' which contextualizes the dataset but does not add new meaning to the parameter itself. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: 'Get a PitchBook investor from dataset' and specifies it returns one record by id. It names the specific dataset ('pitchbook-investors'), which distinguishes it from sibling search/facets tools and other PitchBook item tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you have a specific investor id (since it says 'by id'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like datasets_pitchbook_investors_search or datasets_pitchbook_investors_facets. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.