xmagnet

find_email

Reveal the verified work email for ONE profile from a search_contacts result (profile-first results hide emails until revealed). Runs a Hunter->PDL->RocketReach waterfall and charges 4 credits ONLY when a verified email is found — a miss is free, and a contact already revealed or in the CRM is free. Pass the profile's full_name + company (and linkedin_url if shown). To reveal several, call this once per contact; when revealing many, first tell the user it costs 4 credits each and confirm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`company`	No	Contact's company (improves match accuracy)
`full_name`	Yes	Contact's full name from the search result
`last_name`	No
`first_name`	No
`linkedin_url`	No	Contact's LinkedIn URL from the search result
`company_domain`	No	Company domain if known, e.g. acme.com

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With minimal annotations (only readOnly/destructive hints), the description fully discloses the credit cost (4 credits only on successful find), the waterfall of Hunter->PDL->RocketReach, and free conditions (miss, already revealed, or in CRM). This goes beyond annotations and gives critical operational behavior.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with the purpose first, followed by cost/pricing, parameters, and batching guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the em-dash list format improves readability.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost, free conditions, and usage pattern. Though there is no output schema, the description implies the tool returns the revealed email but does not explicitly state the return format or what happens on a miss (e.g., null response). This is a minor gap but acceptable given the clear primary function.

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 67%, and the description adds guidance on which parameters to prioritize: 'Pass the profile's full_name + company (and linkedin_url if shown)'. This clarifies the intent of parameters and improves on the 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?

The description clearly states the tool reveals a verified work email for one profile, using the verb 'reveal' and the resource 'verified work email'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts (which finds profiles) and validate_email (which validates), and mentions the profile-first hiding behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies usage after a search_contacts result and gives concrete guidance for revealing multiple emails (call once per contact, confirm with user about credit costs). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like enrich_contact or validate_email, but the context is strong.

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

All xmagnet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (create_contact/add_contacts/save_contacts_to_crm/upload_contacts; add_companies/create_company; search_contacts/search_crm_contacts/find_contacts_at_companies), and the names don't clearly reveal whether they operate on saved or prospected data. Although the descriptions clarify some boundaries, an agent would frequently need to read many descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_campaigns, create_deal, and update_contact. Minor deviations like company_intelligence, get_icp, load_more_contacts, and the inconsistent use of add_/create_/upload_/save_ for similar creation actions keep it from being fully consistent.

Tool Count1/5

51 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. Even for a broad CRM/prospecting/marketing platform, exposing this many tools at once makes agent selection costly and unwieldy.

Completeness2/5

Contact and company creation/read/update are covered, but delete is absent across the board, and campaigns can be drafted, listed, and measured but not edited, activated, paused, or deleted. Deals, forms, and landing pages also lack update/delete lifecycle actions, creating meaningful dead ends for common CRM workflows.

Resources

Need Help?