Emailchaser

Source prospects into a campaign (spends credits)

source_prospects

Destructive

SPENDS CREDITS. Queues a background job that searches Emailchaser's contact database with an Ideal Customer Profile's targeting criteria, reveals the matching people and adds them to the campaign as leads. Uses the workspace's primary ICP when icpId is omitted, and adds 50 prospects unless count says otherwise (max 500 per call). Every stored prospect costs the reveal price in credits (1 at the time of writing; the response reports creditsPerProspect and estimatedCredits, the most this batch can cost). Duplicates, blocklisted domains and contacts without an email address are filtered out before any credit is spent. Asynchronous: the prospects arrive in the campaign's leads over time. Calling again for the same campaign and profile pages deeper into the audience instead of re-revealing (and re-paying for) the same people.

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": {
      "campaignId": "<campaignId>"
    },
    "name": "source_prospects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many prospects to add in this call (default 50, max 500)
`icpId`	No	The ICP whose targeting criteria drive the search (from list_icps). Defaults to the primary ICP
`campaignId`	Yes	The campaign the sourced prospects are added to (from list_campaigns)

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag a non-readonly, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: credit spend per stored prospect, the cost-report fields in the response, defaults (primary ICP, 50 prospects, 500 cap), pre-spend filtering of duplicates/blocklisted/no-email contacts, and asynchronous arrival of leads. It also discloses that retries page deeper instead of re-paying, which is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the critical fact ('SPENDS CREDITS') and keeps every sentence informative, with no filler. The final sentence about paging on repeat calls is slightly tangled in phrasing, and the '(1 at the time of writing)' hedge adds words, but neither is wasted enough to hurt usability.

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?

For a credit-spending, destructive, asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, defaults, caps, filtering, and async behavior — well beyond most. The remaining gap is job tracking: it says prospects arrive over time but not how to observe completion or the queue state, leaving the agent to infer the follow-up step.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: icpId falls back to the workspace's primary ICP, count defaults to 50 with a 500 ceiling enforced per call, and each stored prospect incurs the reveal price. The only thing not elaborated is what the response's cost fields look like beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb chain: queues a background job that searches Emailchaser's contact database using an ICP's targeting criteria, reveals matches, and adds them to a campaign as leads. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like add_leads (which adds known contacts) and add_lead_finder_prospects, since sourcing-from-database is explicit.

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?

Gives clear context for use (source ICP-matched prospects into a campaign) and an explicit operational guideline for repeat calls: re-calling the same campaign/profile pages deeper rather than re-revealing the same people. It stops short of naming alternatives such as add_leads or add_lead_finder_prospects as the 'when not to use' case, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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?