Tulina

lemlist_enrich

Submit an ASYNC enrichment on a person — no campaign, no lead needed.

Returns immediately with an enrichment_id; the work runs server-side. THEN call lemlist_enrich_result(enrichment_id) to collect it (first poll after ~10-20s, then every ~15-30s until done).

Args: email, linkedin_url, first_name, last_name, company_name, company_domain: the identity to enrich. All optional, but lemlist only resolves what it can match — pass a LinkedIn URL, or a first/last name together with a company domain.

Enrichment actions — at least one is required, and each spends lemlist credits: find_email finds a verified email, verify_email verifies the email you passed (debounce), linkedin_enrichment runs the LinkedIn enrichment, find_phone finds a phone number. Ask only for what you need.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lemlist_enrich"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`email`	No
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`_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.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`last_name`	No
`find_email`	No
`find_phone`	No
`first_name`	No
`webhook_url`	No
`company_name`	No
`linkedin_url`	No
`verify_email`	No
`company_domain`	No
`linkedin_enrichment`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses asynchronous server-side execution, the returned `enrichment_id`, the polling cadence to reach `done`, and that each enrichment action spends lemlist credits. It stops short of saying whether credits are consumed on failed/no-match enrichments or what error responses look like, so it is not fully exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the async contract and the mandatory follow-up call in the first two lines, then identity args, then action flags. Every paragraph maps to a decision the caller must make; nothing is decorative.

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 16-parameter async tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, sequencing, matching requirements, action costs, and the return value. The remaining gaps — `webhook_url` purpose and what a failed enrichment costs or returns — keep it short of complete.

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 31%, and the description compensates for most of the gap: it groups the six identity fields and explains each of the four boolean action flags (`find_email`, `verify_email`, `linkedin_enrichment`, `find_phone`) and their credit cost, plus the at-least-one-action requirement, which the schema does not express. It leaves `webhook_url` and the internal routing params (`_org`, `_group`, `_project`, `_instance`, `_run_id`) unexplained, though those carry their own schema descriptions.

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?

"Submit an ASYNC enrichment on a person — no campaign, no lead needed" states a specific verb and resource plus its scope, and explicitly distinguishes it from the lead/campaign-bound sibling `lemlist_enrich_lead`. An agent can select 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 the full workflow: submit here, then call `lemlist_enrich_result(enrichment_id)` with the first poll after ~10-20s and repeats every ~15-30s until `done`. It also names the prerequisites for a successful match (LinkedIn URL, or first/last name plus company domain) and warns to request only needed actions.

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?