List enrichment runs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Run type — `custom` or a prebuilt enrichment type. | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | Repeatable. Unknown values are rejected with `422`. | |
| toDate | No | Include runs created at or before this instant. | |
| entityId | No | Exact company id; never matches contact runs. | |
| fromDate | No | Include runs created at or after this instant. | |
| entityType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the base safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default sort order, or that it returns only a subset of runs. It fails to disclose anything beyond what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with zero fluff, which is highly concise. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though the brevity does sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the context is severely lacking. The description does not explain what an enrichment run is, how results are filtered or ordered, or what the response contains, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions none of the 8 parameters. Schema description coverage is 63%, meaning some parameters like `limit`, `offset`, and `entityType` lack textual descriptions. The description does not compensate for this gap, leaving those parameters semantically underdocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('enrichment runs'), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tool `enrichment_runs-get`, the verb 'list' implies a collection operation. It is specific but could benefit from mentioning filtering scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `enrichment_runs-get` or `enrichment_templates-list`. The name implies it is for listing multiple runs, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
