Find and enrich professional contact data from company, name, or LinkedIn URL to fill missing details and fetch images. Costs 3 credits.
Find and enrich professional profiles. Cost: 3 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | Company name. | |
| last_name | No | Last name. | |
| first_name | No | First name. | |
| linkedin_url | No | LinkedIn profile URL. | |
| include_image | No | Fetch profile image. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / properties / company / descriptionPrevious value: -"Company name to narrow search"New value: +"Company name."Input schema / properties / first_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Person's first name"New value: +"First name."Input schema / properties / include_imageAdded value: +{
+ "default": true,
+ "description": "Fetch profile image.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / last_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Person's last name"New value: +"Last name."Input schema / properties / linkedin_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"LinkedIn profile URL (fastest path)"New value: +"LinkedIn profile URL."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the 3-credit cost. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, what happens on a miss, or whether credits are charged per match or per call.
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 short sentences, both front-loaded and both earning their place: the purpose first, then the billing constraint. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists and no annotations are supplied, yet the description never says what an enriched profile looks like or even that at least one of the five optional parameters is needed to match anything. For a zero-required-parameter lookup tool with no structured safety or return info, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or combination guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when structured data does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a concrete verb pair (find, enrich) and the resource (professional profiles), so the agent knows it searches and augments people records rather than companies or emails. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like companies or emails or of clarifying what 'enrich' actually returns.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With 23 siblings including companies, emails, and search, an agent has nothing telling it whether to reach for this tool or one of those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.