Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_item

Retrieve a PitchBook limited partner by ID from the dataset, returning profile details like name, institution type, headquarters, commitments, contacts, and data tables.

Instructions

Get a PitchBook limited partner from dataset. Returns one PitchBook limited partner from the dataset by id, such as 864326-44. The record has name, description, institution type, headquarters, founding year, commitments, contact and data tables. faqs can be empty, since PitchBook writes FAQs only for richer profiles. An unknown id returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPitchBook limited partner id, e.g. 864326-44

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it lists the record fields (name, description, institution type, headquarters, founding year, commitments, contact, data tables), notes that faqs can be empty due to PitchBook's profile richness, and states that unknown ids return 404. It omits auth or rate-limit details, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return fields, a caveat, and error behavior. Four sentences are reasonably tight, though the first two are slightly redundant.

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-record retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the record contains, data quality caveats, and error handling. A mention of how to obtain a valid id would make it fully complete.

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% and already provides the example id '864326-44'; the description adds no additional meaning about the id format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb 'Get' and resource 'PitchBook limited partner', and clarifies it retrieves one record by id from a dataset. It does not explicitly name the search sibling used to find ids, but the item retrieval semantics are unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the search or facets siblings, nor any prerequisites such as needing an id from a search first. The description is purely descriptive of the operation.

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