List profile assignments for an object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | For `company` use the domain (e.g. `acme.com`); for `contact` use the LinkedIn profile URL | |
| objectType | Yes | Object type (`company` or `contact`) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the scope 'for an object', which is already reflected in the required parameters. No contradiction or extra context like pagination or output format is provided.
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 one short sentence, directly stating the action and scope. There is no extraneous information, and the key verb is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundancy.
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?
For a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It lacks an explicit definition of 'profile assignments' and does not describe the return format, but the low complexity and sibling naming make it understandable. It is not fully complete, but close.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both objectType and objectId having descriptive text including examples (e.g., 'acme.com' for company, LinkedIn URL for contact). The description adds no additional parameter explanation, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'profile assignments' and a scope 'for an object'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scoring-assignment-create and scoring-assignment-delete, and from other list tools such as scoring-profile-list. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies a read-only use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scoring-assignment-create or scoring-assignment-delete. There is no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance, relying instead on the tool name and sibling context.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.
