Crawdar Business Research

Refine a lead search

refine_lead_search

Create a new private search job by changing the brief or criteria of a completed job. The original job stays unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Completed source job id returned by an earlier durable search call.
`brief`	No	Replacement natural-language brief for the new job.
`limit`	No	Maximum prospects retained by the new job.
`fields`	No	Business fields to retain. Website and source evidence remain available for verification.
`target`	No	Replacement business target for the new job.
`jobToken`	Yes	Private token belonging to the source job.
`geography`	No	Replacement city, region, country, or Worldwide.
`qualifier`	No	Replacement public requirements and exclusions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Stable job identifier. Use it with jobToken in every lifecycle call.
`status`	Yes	Current durable job state.
`cacheHit`	No
`jobToken`	No	Private bearer token required to read, refine, or export this job.
`retryUrl`	Yes	Authenticated REST URL for creating a replacement after retryable failure.
`cancelUrl`	Yes	Authenticated REST URL for canceling queued or running work.
`exportUrl`	Yes	Authenticated CSV export URL. Add format=json for JSON.
`statusUrl`	Yes	Authenticated REST URL for job status and result pages.
`resultCount`	No
`expiresInSeconds`	Yes	Seconds until the private job and token expire.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already indicating a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description adds useful specifics: it creates a new job and leaves the original untouched. This meaningfully supplements the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action in the first and the non-destructive guarantee in the second. No filler or repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

Given the rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the non-destructive guarantee needed to call the tool correctly. It only lacks explicit guidance about choosing it over sibling search/retry tools.

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?

All eight parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to re-document them. The phrase 'brief or criteria' loosely groups the parameters, but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('private search job'), and clarifies that this is a refinement of a completed job rather than a brand-new search. The statement that 'the original job stays unchanged' further distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_lead_search or start_lead_search.

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?

It clearly describes the scenario: use this tool when you want a new private search job whose brief or criteria differ from a completed job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Crawdar Business Research 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to distinct lifecycle actions (start/get/cancel/refine/retry), and the descriptions make those boundaries clear. The only real overlap is between research_businesses and search_businesses, which both perform synchronous lookups but are separated by natural-language vs structured input.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with lead_search reused across lifecycle operations. Even explain_crawdar and sandbox_businesses fit the naming convention well.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the appropriate range for a business-research MCP server. The count balances synchronous search, a durable async job lifecycle, sandbox testing, and self-documentation without feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

The async lead-search lifecycle is well covered with start, get, cancel, refine, and retry, and the synchronous and sandbox search tools cover adjacent needs. However, export is mentioned in start_lead_search but not exposed as a tool, and there is no way to list existing jobs, leaving minor gaps.

Resources

Need Help?