Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lemlist_enrich_bulk

Submit several enrichments in one call.

Returns submitted: one entry per person, in order, each carrying either enrichment_id or error (e.g. MISSING_INPUTS). Unlike a FullEnrich job, a bulk submit yields one id PER PERSON — pass the whole list of ids to lemlist_enrich_result.

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": {
      "people": "<people>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_enrich_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
peopleYesone entry per person. Identity keys (all optional, same matching rules as `lemlist_enrich`): `email`, `linkedin_url`, `first_name`, `last_name`, `company_name`, `company_domain`. Plus `actions`: a list among `find_email`, `verify_email`, `linkedin_enrichment`, `find_phone` — required, and each action spends lemlist credits per person.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE 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.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
webhook_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add real value: it describes the 'submitted' return array, order preservation, per-person ids, and per-entry error codes like MISSING_INPUTS. It omits, however, whether submission is synchronous, any credit-consumption warning (only present in the schema), and the org/run context requirements that the _org/_run_id params imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return contract; the parenthetical error example earns its place. Slightly padded by the FullEnrich comparison, which is the least load-bearing clause.

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 7-parameter bulk submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape and error semantics, which is the main gap a missing output schema leaves. It is not fully complete: batch limits, credit cost per action, and the single-vs-bulk selection rule are absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents people, actions, and the context parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the genuinely new fact that results come back 'one entry per person, in order,' but adds nothing about the people/actions structure beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit several enrichments in one call,' which distinguishes it from the single-person lemlist_enrich by the word 'bulk' and 'several'. It also names the follow-up sibling lemlist_enrich_result, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with lemlist_enrich.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a clear next-step instruction ('pass the whole list of ids to lemlist_enrich_result') and contrasts with 'a FullEnrich job,' but it never states when to prefer this over calling lemlist_enrich repeatedly, nor any batch-size or credit-spend preconditions for the caller to weigh.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
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