Accountless people-enrichment lookup: normalize identity signals and return requested enrichment fields with confidence, freshness, retrieval time and evidence hash. $0.28/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Full name | |
| No | Email address | ||
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| company | No | Company or organization | |
| location | No | Location | |
| linkedin_url | No | LinkedIn profile URL | |
| requested_fields | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "company": "Analytical Engines",
+ "email": "ada@example.com",
+ "location": "London",
+ "name": "Ada Lovelace",
+ "requested_fields": [
+ "email",
+ "company",
+ "location",
+ "job_title",
+ "linkedin_url"
+ ]
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a solid job: it discloses that lookup is accountless, normalizes inputs, returns confidence/freshness/retrieval time/evidence hash, and has a $0.28/call cost. It does not detail error behavior or whether any identity signal is required, but the core behavior is transparent.
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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the core purpose, then covers return metadata and pricing. Every clause adds useful information 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?
There is no output schema, so the description helpfully names the return metadata fields. Still, it does not clarify whether at least one identity signal must be supplied alongside requested_fields, nor does it describe the response envelope, errors, or how this relates to the sibling search tools.
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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about what happens with those inputs—normalization and enrichment—but does not meaningfully explain individual parameter semantics 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 states a specific resource and action: an accountless people-enrichment lookup that normalizes identity signals and returns requested enrichment fields with metadata. It is clear and mostly distinguishable from sibling search tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for contrast.
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 phrase 'Accountless people-enrichment lookup' implies when this tool is appropriate: enriching person identity data without an account. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like rep_stableenrich_people_search or pdl_people_enrich, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.