search_decision_makersIdentify key decision makers at any company using LinkedIn profile data.
Search for decision makers of any company.
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_decision_makers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states only that the tool searches, without disclosing return format, pagination, rate limits, filtered inputs, or any other behavioral traits that could affect invocation or result interpretation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but extremely minimal; however, the lack of structure is more a completeness issue than a conciseness problem.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is too thin. It does not specify what input identifies the company, what a 'decision maker' means, or what the returned results look like, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it reliably.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The phrase 'of any company' hints at an implicit company input, but since no parameters exist, there is no schema meaning to supplement.
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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('decision makers') with an apparent scope ('of any company'). It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like search_leads or search_companies, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_leads, search_people, or other sibling search tools. No context about prerequisites or input requirements is provided, so an agent is left to guess when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.