search_profileExtract full professional details from a B2B profile URL (e.g., LinkedIn), including work history, education, and company details. Use for lead enrichment.
Get full profile details from B2B profile URL (e.g., LinkedIn). Extracts comprehensive professional information including work history, education, and company details. Rate limit: 300 requests/minute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses a rate limit (300/min), which is valuable, but doesn't state authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the extraction is deterministic. For a read-only fetch with no annotations, a 3 is fair – some behavioral context, but gaps remain.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by extraction details and rate limit. No wasted words, though the rate limit could be integrated more smoothly.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and rate limit, but misses authentication, error cases, and output format details. Not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without uncertainty.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a profile URL and gives an example (LinkedIn), which adds minor clarity. However, it doesn't specify URL format constraints, required domains, or error handling for invalid URLs. Baseline 3 as per rules when schema is weak.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get full profile details from B2B profile URL') and clarifies what is extracted (work history, education, company details). It is distinguishable from siblings like find_email or search_company, which operate on different resources.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The description implies usage by requiring a profile URL, but doesn't say when to prefer this over, say, email_to_profile or social_to_work_email. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.