Tulina

lemlist_database

Read-only

Search lemlist's SHARED prospecting database. Reads only.

Distinct from lemlist_contact/lemlist_company, which hold only YOUR data. Read op="filters" first: the filter vocabulary is server-side, and a filters payload built from guesswork comes back empty. Every call spends the quota of your lemlist key. Saving or deleting a persona is lemlist_act.

Args by op:

people: filters, search, excludes, page, size.
companies: filters, page, size.
filters: no argument — the available filters.
personas: optional mode — the saved personas.

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": {
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_database"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	Yes
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`mode`	No
`page`	No
`size`	No
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`search`	No
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`filters`	No
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`excludes`	No
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

'Reads only' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context the annotation cannot carry: every call consumes the lemlist key quota, and a filter payload built from guesswork returns empty results. It does not describe result shape or pagination behavior, which are not covered by any output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and the critical filters-first instruction, then a compact per-op argument list. Dense and largely waste-free, though the args-by-op block is terse enough that it reads more as an index than as guidance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 12-parameter, four-operation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, sibling routing, quota cost, and per-op arguments. What remains thin is pagination behavior/limits and what a result row contains, which the agent must discover empirically.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 42%, but the description compensates by mapping parameters to each `op` value (people: filters/search/excludes/page/size; companies: filters/page/size; filters: none; personas: mode), which is the key semantic an agent needs. It stops short of explaining the item shape of `filters` or `excludes`, relying on the `filters` op to reveal it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search lemlist's SHARED prospecting database') and immediately scopes it as read-only. It also explicitly differentiates itself from `lemlist_contact`/`lemlist_company` ('which hold only YOUR data'), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Read `op="filters"` first') with the reason (server-side filter vocabulary, guesswork returns empty), names the sibling for write actions (`lemlist_act` for saving/deleting a persona), and contrasts with the own-data tools. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?