leadoracle
Server Details
LeadOracle - 7-tool B2B lead intel MCP: enrichment, scoring, intent signals, ICP fit.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ToolOracle/leadoracle
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Tools are mostly distinct, but domain_info and email_finder both touch on email patterns, and domain_info's LinkedIn/XING profile may overlap with person_search. However, their primary purposes differ, so confusion is minimal.
All tool names follow a consistent noun_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., company_lookup, domain_info, email_finder). No mixing of conventions, making the set predictable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for lead generation—covering companies, domains, emails, people, startups, and health. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.
The tool set covers core lead generation tasks, but lacks location-based search or financial data. Minor gaps exist, but agents can still accomplish most primary workflows.
Available Tools
7 toolscompany_lookupBInspect
Look up company details: registration, status, address, incorporation date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | Company name e.g. 'SweetDreamsBetten GmbH', 'SAP SE' | |
| country | No | Country code: 'de', 'gb', 'us', 'fr' (default: de) | de |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the basic lookup function.
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 sentence that effectively conveys the purpose, with no unnecessary words.
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?
While it lists the details returned (registration, status, address, incorporation date), it lacks output schema and does not mention error handling or data limitations. Adequate but not complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the parameters (company name example and country code). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Look up company details: registration, status, address, incorporation date.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like domain_info or email_finder.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any conditions for optimal use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
domain_infoAInspect
Domain intelligence: DNS, WHOIS, email patterns, LinkedIn/XING profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Domain name e.g. 'sweetdreamsbetten.de', 'example.com' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the types of data returned (DNS, WHOIS, etc.), which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, since no annotations exist, it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key data types. Every word is meaningful.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return types. It provides a good understanding of what to expect, though details on pagination or data completeness are missing.
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 is 100% for the single parameter 'domain', and the description does not add any new semantics beyond the schema's example. 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 clearly states that the tool provides domain intelligence including DNS, WHOIS, email patterns, and social profiles. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like company_lookup or person_search.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for domain-related lookups, it does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
email_finderCInspect
Generate likely email patterns for a person at a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Company domain e.g. 'example.com' | |
| last_name | No | Person's last name (optional) | |
| first_name | No | Person's first name (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it performs a live lookup or generates patterns locally, what format the patterns take, or any dependencies like requiring both first and last name.
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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose without any wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., list of email strings). It does not explain what 'likely email patterns' means or how many results to expect, leaving significant gaps 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 tool generates likely email patterns for a person at a domain, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like person_search (which might search for person info) and domain_info (which gives domain details).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkBInspect
LeadOracle server status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not explain what 'status' entails (e.g., response format, possible values like healthy/unhealthy). For a tool with no parameters, the impact is minimal, but additional detail would improve transparency.
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 at three words, conveying the essential purpose without any redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for a simple health check. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the response structure or typical usage pattern.
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?
No parameters exist, so the schema is self-sufficient. Baseline of 4 applies; description adds no parameter-specific value but none is needed.
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 'LeadOracle server status' clearly indicates the tool checks server status. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'get', the purpose is unambiguous given the tool name and context.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. As a health check, it's typically used before other operations to verify server availability, but this is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
industry_companiesCInspect
Find companies in a specific industry or sector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results 1-20 (default: 10) | |
| country | No | Country code: de, gb, us (default: de) | de |
| industry | No | Industry/sector e.g. 'Matratzen', 'Software', 'Fintech', 'E-Commerce' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The description only states a generic find operation, but does not disclose that it is a read operation, any auth requirements, or what the results contain beyond industry filtering.
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 sentence, very concise. However, it is too brief and lacks necessary details that could fit within this length. Acceptable but borderline under-specified.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters and complex filtering, more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is clear.
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 tool finds companies in a specific industry or sector, with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_lookup', so it lacks distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mentions of when-not-to-use or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
person_searchAInspect
Search for a person's professional profile, Wikipedia info, and news mentions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Person's full name e.g. 'Elon Musk' | |
| company | No | Company they work at (optional, improves accuracy) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what types of information are searched, but does not disclose safety, permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a search tool.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
The description covers the basic functionality but lacks details about return format, error scenarios, or pagination. Given no output schema and the variety of information sources mentioned, more completeness would be helpful for agent decision-making.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond pointing out that the company parameter improves accuracy, which the schema already notes. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'a person's professional profile, Wikipedia info, and news mentions', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on companies, domains, or emails.
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 use cases for finding person information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context from sibling tools makes it moderately clear, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
startup_searchBInspect
Find recently founded startups in a sector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Sector or technology e.g. 'KI Startup', 'Fintech', 'SaaS' | |
| country | No | Country code: de, gb, us (default: de) | de |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'find' (implying read-only) but does not disclose what 'recently founded' means (e.g., time range), potential limitations, or return format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on the meaning of 'recently founded' and the default behavior for country. It does not describe return values, which may be expected.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 'Find' and resource 'recently founded startups' within a sector, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_lookup or industry_companies. It directly conveys the tool's primary function.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., industry_companies for broader searches, company_lookup for known entities). The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!