leads-mcp

search-people

Find prospects by job title, company, location, and seniority using Apollo.io data.

Instructions

Search for people by job title, company, location, and seniority. 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-people"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (default: 10)
`locations`	No	Locations to filter by (e.g., ['San Francisco', 'New York'])
`seniorities`	No	Seniority levels (e.g., ['senior', 'executive', 'director'])
`personTitles`	No	Job titles to search for (e.g., ['CTO', 'VP Engineering'])
`organizationName`	No	Company name to search within

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Uses Apollo.io,' indicating an external data source, but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or what the response contains. This limited disclosure 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and criteria. There is no wasted text, and the second sentence about Apollo.io is valuable context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify the return value and any caveats. It covers the search criteria but not the response format or behavior when results are empty. The strong schema coverage partially compensates, but the description lacks completeness.

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 already provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond a high-level summary. The mention of job title, company, location, and seniority maps to the schema parameters but does not provide additional semantic detail.

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 the tool searches for people using specific criteria (job title, company, location, seniority). The verb 'search' and resource 'people' are explicit, and listing the filter criteria distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-companies and enrich-person.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enrich-person or find-email. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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

Deploy Server