Read scores for one or more objects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectId | Yes | Repeatable. For `company` use the domain; for `contact` use the LinkedIn profile URL. | |
| objectType | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'one or more objects' batch capability, which is useful, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making the tool's core function immediately clear. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned scores look like, but it does not. It also does not clarify what 'scores' means in this domain or how they are structured. The minimal wording leaves the agent without return-format expectations, making it incomplete for a read operation.
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 schema provides 50% description coverage: objectId has a detailed description ('Repeatable. For `company` use the domain; for `contact` use the LinkedIn profile URL.'), and objectType has a clear enum. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the burden, keeping this at baseline.
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 'Read scores for one or more objects' clearly states the action (read) and resource (scores), with object types defined in the schema. It distinguishes itself from scoring management tools (e.g., scoring-profile-*) by focusing on reading actual scores, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like scoring-assignment-list.
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. Sibling tools like scoring-assignment-list, scoring-compute, and scoring-profile-get exist, but the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational advice.
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.
