research_company
Grounded, cited answer about a company.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| question | No |
StackResolve
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Grounded, cited answer' hints that the output includes citations and is sourced, but it omits how sources are selected, whether external web access is involved, failure behavior, or output shape. This is more informative than a tautology but still largely under-discloses.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a likely complex research tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain how to specify the company, what form the answer takes, citation format, or how it differs from sibling tools.
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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not mention 'domain' or 'question' at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning or expected format/value constraints are added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource ('a company') and output type ('grounded, cited answer'), but it is a noun phrase rather than a specific verb. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_company or get_profile, which also concern company information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose research_company over siblings such as get_company or compare_companies. The phrase 'grounded, cited answer' implies a research-oriented use, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
resolve and find_tools_for_task both return ranked tool recommendations for a task, and how_to also surfaces recommendedTools, making their boundaries unclear. search_tools adds further overlap as a registry search by query and requirements. The company/research and registry lookup tools are more distinct, but the task-to-tool cluster is genuinely confusing.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is almost entirely snake_case verb_noun: get_company, find_competitors, search_tools, compare_products, list_registry. The exceptions are audit and resolve as bare verbs and how_to as an idiom, but they are still recognizable.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a reasonable range, and the broad scope of registry lookup, research, comparison, audit, and interface generation supports a larger surface. However, find_tools_for_task largely duplicates resolve, so the count is slightly higher than necessary.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main registry lifecycle: listing, searching, getting records, comparing, researching, pricing, readiness auditing, and generating agent interfaces. It is intentionally read/research-oriented, so the lack of registry CRUD is not a severe gap. Minor missing pieces like direct per-product OpenAPI retrieval or registry entry management are workable around.