Get one Wellfound company profile by slug or URL: description, size, stage, total raised, funding rounds, founders, tags, locations, and open jobs.
Get one company from Wellfound by slug or URL: description, size, stage, total raised, funding rounds, founders, tags, locations and open jobs. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Company slug or Wellfound URL. e.g. stripe |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, and the verb 'Get' signals a read. It does not state auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on an invalid slug, so transparency is partial.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by the cost note. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, so the enumerated field list is the primary signal of what comes back, and the cost line adds a practical detail. For a single-parameter read tool this is largely complete, though error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented with an example ('e.g. stripe'). The description's 'by slug or URL' merely reinforces the schema rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get one company from Wellfound') and enumerates the returned fields, which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like run_crunchbase_company or run_yc_companies beyond the source name.
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?
'by slug or URL' implies the input mode and thus when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as run_wellfound_jobs_search or run_wellfound_locations. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.