Retrieve a company's details by ID, and pass a project ID when your token authorizes multiple DealDesk projects.
Get a company by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId",
- "companyId"
-]New value: +[
+ "companyId"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost nothing: no statement about read-only safety, permissions, or behavior when the id is unknown. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but nothing is disclosed about errors, authorization, or the multi-project ambiguity the projectId parameter hints at.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is so terse that it barely earns its place as documentation; brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what is returned and how a missing/unauthorized company is handled. Neither is present, leaving real gaps for an agent invoking it.
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 only 50%: companyId has no schema description and the description adds nothing about it beyond 'by id'. The projectId semantics (omit vs required depending on OAuth authorization) live entirely in the schema, and the description does not reinforce or clarify either parameter.
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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (company) scoped by id, so an agent can tell it retrieves a single company. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like dealdesk.list_companies or dealdesk.get_company_commercial_summary, which could also return company data.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_companies, get_company_commercial_summary, or patch_company. The agent must infer retrieval-vs-list behavior purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.