Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find Phone Number

find_phone_number
Read-only

Pass a list of LinkedIn profile URLs — one entry for a single person, all of them at once for a batch (they are looked up in parallel, costing one tool call against the loop guard, not N). Returns one result per URL in the same order. Airscale brokers providers like RocketReach. Persists nothing — use the returned numbers however the agent needs them (e.g. tell the user, or stash them on prospects via update_prospect).

A LinkedIn profile URL is the only accepted input — this tool cannot look a person up by email or name. When a record (a HubSpot/CRM contact, a prospect row, a spreadsheet line) has no LinkedIn URL but does have the person's email, first call find_linkedin_url(email=...) to resolve one, then pass that URL here. Apply this resolve-then-lookup step to every record, not just the first; skip the phone lookup for any person you cannot get a URL for.

Costs 8 Sliq credits per number found, when run on Sliq's shared Airscale account. Misses (no number on file) and upstream failures are free. A worst-case check runs up front on the Sliq path: the whole batch is refused unless the balance covers 8 credits per URL (any URL could be a hit). So no API call is ever spent on a lookup that can't be billed, and a user low on credits is told to top up or connect their own key. If the user has connected their own Airscale key (BYO, via the integrations page), lookups run against that account instead — no Sliq credit gate and no Sliq credit charge. A list of result dicts in input order. Per hit: {status: 'success', found: True, phone_number, phone_numbers, provider, linkedin_url, credits_charged: 8} (0 on the BYO path) — phone_number is the first number, phone_numbers the full list. Per miss: {..., found: False, phone_number: None, phone_numbers: [], credits_charged: 0}. A malformed (non-LinkedIn) URL or an upstream failure on one URL becomes a per-item {found: False, error, credits_charged: 0} in that slot — it never aborts the rest of the batch. If the up-front worst-case credit check fails, it raises InsufficientCreditsError (no lookups are attempted).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
on_behalf_ofNoAn agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.
linkedin_urlsYesLinkedIn profile URLs, e.g. ["https://www.linkedin.com/in/janedoe"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich context beyond that: 8 credits per hit, free misses/failures, a worst-case up-front credit gate that raises InsufficientCreditsError, the BYO-key path with no Sliq charge, and one loop-guard call for a parallel batch. The <returns> block fully documents per-hit, per-miss, and per-item error shapes. The one gap is that it doesn't state outright that 'persists nothing' is consistent with the read-only annotation, but the coverage is strong, so I'd place this at 4 rather than 3.

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?

The summary is front-loaded and every paragraph covers distinct territory (inputs, costs, BYO path, returns). It is dense and slightly verbose — credit semantics appear in two places and the returns block is lengthy — but for a tool with this many operational caveats the length is largely justified.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No structured output schema exists, yet the <returns> block fully specifies hit, miss, and per-item error shapes plus the InsufficientCreditsError path. Combined with the cost model and resolve-then-lookup workflow, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the array semantics — one entry for a single person, the full list for a batch, results returned in input order and looked up in parallel — which the schema's terse 'LinkedIn profile URLs, e.g. [...]' does not convey.

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 and resource (find phone numbers), the exact input it consumes (LinkedIn profile URLs), the backing provider (Airscale/RocketReach), and its batch scope. An agent can distinguish it from find_email and find_linkedin_url without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the constraint (LinkedIn URL is the only accepted input, not email/name), and names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it: call find_linkedin_url(email=...) first, then pass the URL here. It even mandates applying that step to every record, not just the first.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
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