Skip to main content
Glama
adamanz

Apollo.io MCP Server

by adamanz

organization_search

Search for organizations by domain or location to identify and connect with potential business partners or clients.

Instructions

Use the Organization Search endpoint to find organizations

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
q_organization_domains_listNoList of organization domains to search for
organization_locationsNoList of organization locations to search for

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:153-171 (registration)
    Tool registration in the list of available tools, including name, description, and JSON input schema.
    {
      name: 'organization_search',
      description: 'Use the Organization Search endpoint to find organizations',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          q_organization_domains_list: { 
            type: 'array', 
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'List of organization domains to search for' 
          },
          organization_locations: { 
            type: 'array', 
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'List of organization locations to search for' 
          }
        }
      }
    },
  • MCP tool handler switch case that calls the ApolloClient organizationSearch method and formats the result as text content.
    case 'organization_search': {
      const result = await this.apollo.organizationSearch(args);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the input parameters for the organizationSearch query.
    export interface OrganizationSearchQuery {
      q_organization_domains_list?: string[];
      organization_locations?: string[];
      [key: string]: any;
    }
  • Helper method in ApolloClient class that performs the HTTP POST request to Apollo.io's organization search endpoint.
    async organizationSearch(query: OrganizationSearchQuery): Promise<any> {
      try {
        const url = `${this.baseUrl}/mixed_companies/search`;
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.post(url, query);
        
        if (response.status === 200) {
          return response.data;
        } else {
          console.error(`Error: ${response.status} - ${response.statusText}`);
          return null;
        }
      } catch (error: any) {
        console.error(`Error: ${error.response?.status} - ${error.response?.statusText || error.message}`);
        return null;
      }
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it 'find organizations' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal information, which could be improved with more context, but it's not verbose or poorly structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what 'find' entails, the return values, or how results are structured. With 2 parameters and no behavioral context, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool 'find organizations' which gives a basic purpose, but it's vague about what 'find' means (search by what criteria?) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'organization_enrichment' or 'people_search'. It uses the generic verb 'find' rather than specifying the search mechanism.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'organization_enrichment' or 'people_search'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage. It's a generic statement with no operational guidance.

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