Skip to main content
Glama
adamanz

Apollo.io MCP Server

by adamanz

get_person_email

Retrieve email addresses for individuals using their Apollo.io person ID to facilitate direct communication and outreach.

Instructions

Get email address for a person using their Apollo ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apollo_idYesApollo.io person ID

Implementation Reference

  • The `getPersonEmail` method that implements the core tool logic: fetches email addresses for a person using Apollo.io person ID via direct API call to add to prospects endpoint.
    async getPersonEmail(apolloId: string): Promise<any> {
      try {
        if (!apolloId) {
          throw new Error('Apollo ID is required');
        }
    
        const baseUrl = `https://app.apollo.io/api/v1/mixed_people/add_to_my_prospects`;
        const payload = {
          entity_ids: [apolloId],
          analytics_context: 'Searcher: Individual Add Button',
          skip_fetching_people: true,
          cta_name: 'Access email',
          cacheKey: Date.now()
        };
    
        const response = await axios.post(baseUrl, payload, { 
          headers: { 
            'X-Api-Key': this.apiKey,
            'Content-Type': 'application/json'
          } 
        });
    
        if (!response.data) {
          throw new Error('No data received from Apollo API');
        }
    
        const emails = (response?.data?.contacts ?? []).map((item: any) => item.email);
        return emails;
      } catch (error: any) {
        console.error(`Error getting person email: ${error.message}`);
        return null;
      }
    }
  • Input schema definition for the 'get_person_email' tool, specifying required 'apollo_id' parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        apollo_id: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Apollo.io person ID'
        }
      },
      required: ['apollo_id']
    }
  • src/index.ts:186-199 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_person_email' tool in the MCP server's listTools handler, including name, description, and schema.
    {
      name: 'get_person_email',
      description: 'Get email address for a person using their Apollo ID',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          apollo_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Apollo.io person ID'
          }
        },
        required: ['apollo_id']
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:282-289 (registration)
    Dispatch handler in MCP callToolRequest that invokes the ApolloClient.getPersonEmail method for 'get_person_email' tool.
    case 'get_person_email': {
      const result = await this.apollo.getPersonEmail(args.apollo_id as string);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
        }]
      };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as the agent lacks critical operational context beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get email address for a person') and specifies the key requirement ('using their Apollo ID'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (simple lookup with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), usage guidelines, and output information. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to ensure reliable agent operation.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'apollo_id' parameter fully documented as 'Apollo.io person ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get email address') and resource ('for a person'), specifying the required identifier ('using their Apollo ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like people_search or people_enrichment by focusing on retrieving a specific piece of contact information rather than broader search or enrichment operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as employees_of_company, which might also retrieve email data in a different context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an Apollo ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk lookups), or direct comparisons to siblings like people_enrichment (which might include email among other data). Usage is implied by the tool name and description but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/adamanz/apollo-io-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server