Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

  1. 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
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.
employee_countNoCandidate headcount. None when unknown.
industry_verdictYesThe 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_verdictYesThe 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_stagesNoConfigured funding stages — optional; unset or empty makes the funding check a no-op (everything passes it).
latest_funding_stageNoApollo's title-case stage string ('Series B', 'Seed'); None/absent under patchy coverage.
icp_employee_count_rangesYesConfigured size ranges, each a 'min,max' pair ('25,200'), an empty side meaning unbounded ('500,', ',50').

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is side-effect free, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: the include-on-null semantics for both size and funding, the meaning of 'under-count' vs. confident mismatch, and even the downstream scoring consequence (amber 5 vs. 10). This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded summary block followed by a returns block is a sensible structure, and because there is no output schema the return-value prose earns its space. The returns section is dense and repetitive in places (the include-on-null rationale is restated across flags), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return object and does so completely, enumerating every field, defining 'passed' as the AND of the four verdicts, and giving scoring guidance. All seven parameters are accounted for and no obvious decision-relevant information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so per the baseline a 3 is the floor, but the description adds real meaning about how parameters combine — the two mechanical checks are AND-ed with the caller's verdicts, and an unset funding-stage list makes that check a no-op. It never elaborates on on_behalf_of or employee_count beyond what the schema says, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 first sentence names a precise role: a per-candidate ICP gate scoped to 'find-companies News mode'. The description goes further and delineates what the tool does not do ('Industry fit and location are NOT decided here'), so an agent can distinguish this mechanical gate from judgment-bearing siblings like query_companies without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context for use — per-candidate evaluation inside the find-companies News flow — plus an explicit boundary that the agent must supply industry/location verdicts rather than derive them here. It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when this gate should be skipped, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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