mcp

Lusha Company Signal Score

signal_score_companies

Lusha signals: scores known companies by their currently active buying signals (batch of 1-50).

Use when: prioritizing known companies by buying-signal activity (up to 50 by id, domain, name, or email). Do not use when: the signal events are needed (signals_companies_get), or discovering companies by criteria (prospecting_company_search).

One identifier per entry: id, domain, name, or email. Returns: results[] per company (id, name, domain, signalScore, signalTypes, noActiveSignals, or error) and billing. Credits: consumes Lusha credits per scored company; see billing.creditsCharged.

Rate limits apply per Lusha plan (per-minute/hourly/daily); exceeding returns HTTP 429. The account_usage tool returns current limits and remaining headroom.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "companies": "<companies>",
      "reason_for_invocation": "<reason_for_invocation>"
    },
    "name": "signal_score_companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`companies`	Yes	Companies to score (1-50). Each entry has exactly one identifier (id, domain, name, or email) plus an optional clientReferenceId.
`conversation_id`	No	Conversation correlation ID: the conversation_id returned by the most recent Lusha tool response in this conversation that included one, passed back unchanged. Calls that carry the same value are linked as one conversation. Absent on the first call of a conversation.
`reason_for_invocation`	Yes	Brief explanation of why you chose this tool for the current task. Required; at least 20 characters and at most 500 (longer values are truncated). Plain text only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's real contribution is cost and rate-limit disclosure: credits are consumed per scored company via billing.creditsCharged, and HTTP 429 behavior with a pointer to account_usage. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though throttling specifics are deferred rather than stated.

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?

Labeled short lines (Use when / Do not use when / Returns / Credits / Rate limits) make it easy to scan and front-load the decision criteria. Minor redundancy in restating the 1-50 batch size in both the opening line and the usage line 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the per-company result fields (id, name, domain, signalScore, signalTypes, noActiveSignals, error) plus the billing object, and covers cost and throttling. For a batch scoring call with three parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and each identifier field already documents the 'exactly one identifier per entry' rule. The description only restates the one-of constraint and the 1-50 bound, adding essentially nothing the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('scores known companies by their currently active buying signals') and scopes the batch (1-50). It explicitly names the two siblings an agent might confuse it with (signals_companies_get, prospecting_company_search), so disambiguation is possible without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses, and the exclusion routes to named alternatives for each competing need (raw signal events vs. discovery). No inference is required to pick this tool.

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

All mcp 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.