[Sales Intelligence] Find publicly available business email addresses for a company domain.
Wraps nexgendata/company-email-finder. Returns probable role-based
emails (info@, sales@, support@, etc.) plus any verified contacts
discovered by crawling the homepage and common contact pages.
Args: domain: Company domain (e.g. "stripe.com" — with or without scheme)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: specifies it returns probable role-based emails (e.g., info@, sales@) and verified contacts from crawling. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which are consistent. No contradictions.
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?
Description is concise and well-structured: main purpose in first line, brief note on underlying tool, then parameter with example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 simple parameter set (1 required), no output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world hints, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and output. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no mention of pagination or rate limits), but it's largely complete for the tool's complexity.
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 single parameter 'domain' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description provides valuable context: 'Company domain (e.g. "stripe.com" — with or without scheme).' This clarifies format and acceptable input, compensating for the schema gap.
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?
Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find publicly available business email addresses for a company domain.' The verb 'find' and resource 'company domain' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling sales-intelligence tools like 'enrich_company' and 'find_b2b_leads' by focusing solely on email discovery per domain.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions wrapping an underlying tool but does not provide criteria for selection among sibling tools (e.g., when to use this over 'enrich_company' or 'aggregate_company_profile'). Lacks usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.