batch_fit_scoreScore up to 50 companies against your ICP to get tier and score for each, helping prioritize outreach.
Before outreach, choosing where to spend time: use this when the person has a list of companies to score or rank against their ICP (up to 50 at once). Returns each company's tier and score, plus totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companies | Yes | Companies to score (max 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (per-company tier and score plus totals), which is essential given there is no output schema. It omits what happens past the 50 limit and whether an ICP profile must exist first.
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?
A single tight sentence with the use case front-loaded before the mechanics. Slightly awkward colon construction, but every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter, read-only batch tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, batch limit, and return contents. Only minor gaps remain — the source of the ICP and behavior on oversized inputs — which are not blocking for correct invocation.
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 100%, with every nested company field (domain, revenue, industry, techStack, painPoints, etc.) documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the max-50 constraint, which is already stated in the schema, so it contributes nothing beyond structured data — baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — scoring/ranking a list of companies against an ICP, capped at 50. The word 'list' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-company scoring siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly (e.g., get_icp_fit_score), so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Gives a clear situational trigger ('Before outreach, choosing where to spend time') and a condition (list of companies up to 50). It does not name alternatives such as get_icp_fit_score for a single company, nor state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.