marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_search_global

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search company contacts, inquiries, and jobs by name, address, email, phone, or job number. Start here when you only have a name or phone number to find matching records.

Instructions

Search the company for contacts, inquiries (leads) and jobs by name, address, email, phone or job number. Start here when you only have a name or phone number.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "marketsharp_search_global"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Limit results to one kind of record.
`query`	Yes	Text to look for: a name, address, email, phone number or job number.
`numberOfRecords`	No	Most results to return (default 25).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that inquiries are also called leads and that jobs are searchable by job number, but says nothing about match behavior (exact vs. fuzzy), result ordering, or what happens when results are truncated.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, leading with what is searched and following with the decisive usage cue. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope and entry condition adequately. The only gap is that without an output schema, the shape/ordering of returned results is not hinted at, though this is minor for a search tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, type, numberOfRecords) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the default of 25. The description's field list largely restates the query parameter description, adding no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Search the company for contacts, inquiries (leads) and jobs" gives a specific verb and resource set, and the searchable fields (name, address, email, phone, job number) clarify scope. Sibling tools like marketsharp_contacts_search and marketsharp_jobs_search are implicitly contrasted by this tool spanning all three record types, but the cross-entity vs. entity-scoped distinction is never made explicit.

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?

"Start here when you only have a name or phone number" gives a clear entry condition for the agent. However, it stops short of naming alternatives — an agent is not told to prefer marketsharp_contacts_search or marketsharp_jobs_search when the record type is already known.

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