mcp-server-apollo

Poll Webhook Result (Apollo)

apollo_webhook_result

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Apollo enrichment result by request_id when webhook was missed. Free; results stored for 30 days.

Instructions

Fetch the result of an asynchronous Apollo enrichment (phone-number reveal or waterfall) by request_id, in case the webhook callback was missed. Free (no credits); results are kept for 30 days. A 404 with retry_after_seconds means the result is not ready yet — wait before retrying.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "apollo_webhook_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	Yes	Integer request_id from apollo_person_enrich / apollo_people_bulk_enrich (may be negative).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral info: free (no credits), 30-day retention, and specific retry-on-404 behavior. No contradiction.

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 sentences, each essential. First sentence conveys purpose and condition; second adds cost and retry policy. No filler, efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given annotations and schema richness, the description adequately covers asynchronous nature, retry handling, and retention. Lacks detail on successful response structure, but rules state no output schema needed for return values; still, a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds context: requestId comes from apollo_person_enrich or apollo_people_bulk_enrich and may be negative, which aids correct parameter usage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches results of an asynchronous Apollo enrichment (phone-number reveal or waterfall) using a request_id, with the specific use case of recovering a missed webhook callback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apollo_person_enrich which initiate enrichment.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool when a webhook callback was missed and provides retry guidance: a 404 with retry_after_seconds means not ready. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server