email_enrichmentEnrich an email address with additional information about the person, including their name, position, company details, and social profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address to enrich |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is established outside the description. The description adds context about the nature of the returned data, but it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as response variability, rate limits, or data source caveats. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 a single, focused sentence that states the action, the object, and the expected enrichment fields. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and each phrase contributes meaning.
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 that this is a one-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result categories well. It would be slightly more complete if it mentioned when to choose combined_enrichment or person_enrichment, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage for the only parameter is 100%, and the schema already provides a description, format, and pattern for 'email'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating that it is an email address, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'enrich' with a clear resource ('an email address') and lists the enrichment output categories (name, position, company details, social profiles). It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like person_enrichment, company_enrichment, or combined_enrichment.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when you have an email address and want additional person/company information. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as combined_enrichment or person_enrichment, and it names no exclusions or alternative routing.
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.