Retrieve a client's ICP, competitors, and buying signals by domain or slug to answer GTM research questions and assess prospect fit.
A client's ICP (industries, size, geographies, buyer titles, qualifiers, disqualifiers), competitors and the buying signals to watch. client: domain or slug, e.g. gong.io.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is the content shape of the response (no output schema exists, so this matters), but it says nothing about lookup failures, unknown clients, or caching/rate behavior.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the payload and followed by the parameter hint. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical facet list is dense enough to be slightly scannable-hostile.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating ICP fields, competitors and signals. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, that is close to sufficient; only the ambiguity versus get_signals remains unresolved.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'client' parameter, and it does so usefully by stating accepted formats (domain or slug) plus a concrete example ('gong.io'). That is exactly the compensating detail a 0%-coverage schema needs.
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 names the resource precisely and enumerates its contents (ICP facets, competitors, buying signals), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_signals, which appears to cover overlapping 'buying signals' territory.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. The agent must infer usage purely from the returned-content list, which is thin given siblings like get_signals and get_list_summary that could plausibly be confused with it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.