apollo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apollo_match_contact

Match a CRM contact using email, LinkedIn URL, or name and organization. Returns matched contact data from your Apollo CRM.

Instructions

Match a CRM contact via POST /contacts/match. Like people/match but scoped to your CRM contacts. Provide email, linkedin_url, or name+org.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apollo_match_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No
`extra`	No
`domain`	No
`last_name`	No
`first_name`	No
`linkedin_url`	No
`organization_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the endpoint and scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only or modifies data, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., what happens on no match).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and endpoint. Every word adds value without repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema (exists but not shown) which covers return values. However, with 7 optional parameters and no schema documentation, the description should provide more context on matching logic, handling of multiple matches, or required permissions. The current description leaves gaps for an agent to correctly use the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists email, linkedin_url, and name+org (first_name, last_name, organization_name) as input options, providing partial guidance. However, it omits 'extra' and 'domain' parameters and does not explain their purpose or constraints.

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 action (match a CRM contact), the resource (CRM contact), and the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'people/match' by noting it is scoped to CRM contacts.

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 provides explicit guidance on required input combinations: 'Provide email, linkedin_url, or name+org.' It also hints at when to use this tool vs people/match. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention other alternatives beyond the comparison.

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

Deploy Server