Emailchaser

Create ICP

create_icp

Stores a manually-authored Ideal Customer Profile (ICP): who the workspace sells to, as targeting criteria (titles, seniorities, industries, company sizes, locations, keywords). Set makePrimary to promote it to the workspace's active profile. The profile is stored as given: it is not generated by AI from a website.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_icp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Profile name, e.g. "Mid-market SaaS RevOps leaders"
`titles`	No	Job titles to target, e.g. ["CEO", "Head of Sales"]
`summary`	No	One to three sentences describing who the workspace sells to
`keywords`	No	Free-text keywords, e.g. ["b2b saas"]
`locations`	No	Locations, e.g. ["United States"]
`industries`	No	Industries, e.g. ["Software"]
`makePrimary`	No	Promote this profile to the workspace's active one, demoting any existing primary
`seniorities`	No	Seniority levels, e.g. ["owner", "director"]
`companySizes`	No	Company headcount ranges, e.g. ["11-50", "51-200"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the payload is persisted exactly as supplied, and makePrimary demotes any existing primary. It does not cover duplicate-name handling, validation failures, or what the call returns, which is meaningful for a write operation with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is stored and followed by the flag and persistence caveat; nothing is wasted. The final clause slightly retreads the earlier 'manually-authored' framing, but it earns its place by ruling out AI generation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nine-parameter write tool, the description covers the resource, the criteria fields, and the primary-promotion side effect. However, with no output schema it never indicates what the caller gets back (created profile, ID, full object) or whether only name is required, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of a successful call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the nine parameters already carries an example-bearing description; the description adds no new syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond restating the criteria categories and the makePrimary effect. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Stores a manually-authored Ideal Customer Profile" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what an ICP contains (titles, seniorities, industries, company sizes, locations, keywords), so the agent knows what the tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from an inferred sibling that generates ICPs from a website. It does not name update_icp or set_primary_icp, so the boundary with those is left for the agent to infer.

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?

"Manually-authored" plus "it is not generated by AI from a website" gives a clear selection rule against the auto-generation path, and the makePrimary sentence explains when to use that flag. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer update_icp or set_primary_icp instead, and no note on what to do if a profile with the same name already exists.

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

All Emailchaser tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?