Sliq

Matches Icp

matches_icp

Read-only

Runs the two mechanical checks — employee-count band and funding-stage normalized membership, both include-on-null — and combines them with the caller's industry and location judgments. Industry fit and location are NOT decided here: the agent judges both and passes its verdicts in. {passed, location_ok, size_ok, size_null_included, size_contested, industry_ok, funding_stage_ok, funding_stage_null_included}. passed is the AND of location_ok, size_ok, industry_ok, funding_stage_ok.

Size is not a pure hard gate — it includes-on-uncertain-data like funding, because Apollo undercounts privately-held / industrial firms:

size_null_included True → Apollo had no headcount; included anyway.
size_contested True → Apollo's count is below the smallest band floor (probably an undercount); included anyway. Either flag → score that Company-size evaluation 5 (amber "verify"), not

A count in a gap between bands or above the ceiling is a confident mismatch → size_ok False (drop). Score Industry from industry_verdict (fit → 10, uncertain → 5) and Location from location_verdict (in → 10, uncertain → 5).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`employee_count`	No	Candidate headcount. None when unknown.
`industry_verdict`	Yes	The agent's industry judgment — 'fit' (confidently in an ICP industry), 'uncertain' (plausibly in, but signals thin or conflicting — kept and flagged), or 'off' (drop).
`location_verdict`	Yes	The agent's judgment of whether the candidate's HQ lies within the configured ICP locations — 'in', 'uncertain' (plausibly in, but the location data is partial or it sits just outside a listed place — kept and flagged), or 'out' (drop).
`icp_funding_stages`	No	Configured funding stages — optional; unset or empty makes the funding check a no-op (everything passes it).
`latest_funding_stage`	No	Apollo's title-case stage string ('Series B', 'Seed'); None/absent under patchy coverage.
`icp_employee_count_ranges`	Yes	Configured size ranges, each a 'min,max' pair ('25,200'), an empty side meaning unbounded ('500,', ',50').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / icp_locations

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Configured ICP location strings.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / location

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Candidate location (Apollo enriched.location, or TheirStack\ncity/country). None when enrichment had none."
-}

addedInput schema / properties / location_verdict

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The agent's judgment of whether the candidate's HQ lies\nwithin the configured ICP locations — 'in', 'uncertain' (plausibly\nin, but the location data is partial or it sits just outside a listed\nplace — kept and flagged), or 'out' (drop).",
+  "enum": [
+    "in",
+    "uncertain",
+    "out"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "industry_verdict",
-  "icp_locations",
-  "icp_employee_count_ranges"
-]New value: +[
+  "industry_verdict",
+  "location_verdict",
+  "icp_employee_count_ranges"
+]

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it explains the include-on-null behavior for both size and funding, the size_contested/size_null_included flags, the scoring rules (amber 'verify' vs drop), and the exact output semantics. This goes far beyond the annotation and gives the agent a precise mental model of edge cases and how to interpret results.

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 description is structured with summary and returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. It is detailed but every sentence adds value, covering the mechanical checks, the agent's role, and the output interpretation. Slightly longer than minimal, but the complexity justifies the length.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and subtle behavior (include-on-null, contested size), the description thoroughly covers the return structure, the logic for each flag, and how to interpret scores. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and use the result without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some contextual value by explaining how industry_verdict and location_verdict map to scores (fit→10, uncertain→5) and how icp_employee_count_ranges are used for the size band check, but it largely reinforces schema descriptions rather than providing new meaning. It does not compensate with additional parameter-level insights beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('matches ICP') and resource (per-candidate gate), and explicitly scopes it to 'find-companies News mode.' It distinguishes its role by clarifying that industry and location are NOT decided here, which sets it apart from any potential judgment tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly identifies the intended usage context ('per-candidate ICP gate for find-companies News mode') and instructs the agent to pass its own industry and location verdicts, implying the prerequisite that the agent must make those judgments first. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent would know when to invoke this tool (during candidate filtering in find-companies) and that it relies on the agent's prior judgments. No misleading guidance.

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

All Sliq 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?