get_api_v1_search_peoplesearch people (all filters available) Group: Search. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| geoUrn | No | geos ID | |
| school | No | school IDs | |
| keyword | No | ||
| industry | No | industries ID | |
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| pastCompany | No | companies ID | |
| currentCompany | No | companies ID | |
| profileLanguage | No | en for English, ch for Chinese, etc... | |
| serviceCategory | No | services ID provided by the profile |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which is useful, but it fails to mention any other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a search tool with many parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, comprising a single line with no superfluous text. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the billing cost, which is actionable. However, it lacks any structural breakdown or examples, but for what it contains, it is efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It does not describe the return format, how filters combine, pagination, or any usage caveats. The agent has almost no context to correctly construct a request or interpret results, making this inadequate for a search tool of this depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'all filters available' but does not clarify individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is only 58%, five parameters (start, title, keyword, lastName, firstName) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal value by not compensating for the missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'people', and it distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_companies, search_posts, and search_schools. The phrase 'all filters available' adds specificity, making it unambiguous that this is a comprehensive people search endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mentions of limitations, exclusions, or scenarios where a different search tool would be more appropriate. The description merely says 'search people' with no context on typical use cases or edge cases, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.