Escalate Anything

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get company details

get_company

Read-only

Retrieve one company's complaint escalation record, including contact channels, known blockers, playbooks, and credibility summary to plan and verify a complaint path.

Instructions

Full record for one company: every channel, facts, tips, known blockers and playbooks, plus a credibility summary (grade, source tiers, last verified date).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "get_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information — that the record is comprehensive (every channel, facts, blockers, playbooks) and includes a credibility grade with last-verified date. It still omits failure behavior for an unresolved company key and whether lookups are exact-match.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with 'Full record for one company', followed by a compact enumeration of contents. The list is long but each item carries signal about what the record contains; no filler or restated boilerplate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return shapes, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. The remaining gap is the identifier format for 'company', which an agent needs in order to call the tool correctly and which neither schema nor description supplies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'company' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning and it largely does not. It never says whether the key is a name, ticker, domain, slug, or internal ID, nor whether matching is exact or fuzzy — the most consequential detail for a lookup tool.

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 resource and scope: 'Full record for one company', then enumerates the contents (channels, facts, tips, blockers, playbooks, credibility summary). An agent can tell this is a detail-fetch rather than a search. It does not name or contrast with the sibling find_company, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Full record for one company' implies it is the detail-retrieval step for a single already-identified company, which hints at the find-then-get pattern. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about preferring find_company for partial/ambiguous names, and no mention of what happens when the company is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.