Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
leads-mcp

leads-mcp

by AtomicIntuition
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search-companies

Find companies matching name, industry, location, and employee count filters. Generate targeted leads for outreach using Apollo.io data.

Instructions

Search for companies by name, industry, location, and employee count. Uses Apollo.io.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search-companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default: 10)
queryNoCompany name or keyword to search
locationsNoLocations to filter by (e.g., ['United States', 'Germany'])
industriesNoIndustry tags to filter by
employeeRangesNoEmployee count ranges (e.g., ['1,10', '11,50', '51,200'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Uses Apollo.io', which indicates an external dependency but does not disclose rate limits, permissions, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple search nature, the description plus fully-described schema covers the essential aspects. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of return format or pagination leaves a minor gap, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The input schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, including formats like employeeRanges and locations. The description merely restates the criteria without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Search for companies' with specific filter criteria (name, industry, location, employee count), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search-people by explicitly targeting companies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys a clear usage context: finding companies based on named attributes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools