Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.interzoid

interzoid_company_and_fullname_match

Destructive

Generate a single combined AI-powered similarity key from a company/organization name plus an individual's full name. Records with the same combined key likely share both a similar company and a similar person. Ideal for contact-level deduplication within CRM, marketing, and sales datasets. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyYesCompany or organization name
fullnameYesFull individual name

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation destructiveHint=true conflicts with description of generating a key (non-destructive). No explanation of 'destructive' behavior, permissions, or other traits. Contradiction noted.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences: purpose, use case, cost. No fluff, front-loaded with action.

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?

Covers purpose and use case; lacks output format details (no output schema). For a simple key generator, adequate but not exhaustive.

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 baseline 3. Description adds minimal meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'full individual name' vs 'Full individual name').

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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a key from company and fullname for deduplication. It distinguishes from siblings by combining both inputs, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It mentions ideal use case (contact-level deduplication in CRM/marketing/sales) but lacks when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct data operations (matching, standardization, enrichment) with clear descriptions. Minor overlaps exist, e.g., address_match_advanced vs global_address_match, but descriptions differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'interzoid_descriptive_function' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict purpose from the name.

Tool Count3/5

58 tools is high for a single server, exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While each serves a specific data enrichment function, the quantity may overwhelm agents without clear categorization.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including address, company, person, and financial data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse IP lookup, limited social media coverage), but core data needs are well-addressed.

Resources