Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp

apollo-mcp

by dyngai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apollo_search_contacts

Search your Apollo CRM contacts by keywords, labels, or stage. Filter, sort, and paginate results to find specific contacts.

Instructions

Search YOUR Apollo CRM contacts (vs the prospect database). Accepts arbitrary Apollo search params (q_keywords, contact_label_ids, contact_stage_ids, sort_ascending, sort_by_field, page, per_page, etc.).

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_search_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
extraNoAdditional Apollo body params (escape hatch)
per_pageNo
q_keywordsNoFree-text search
contact_label_idsNo
contact_stage_idsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it accepts arbitrary params and searches CRM contacts, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and list example parameters. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input parameters and scope. It could mention pagination limits or the 'extra' escape hatch more explicitly, but overall sufficient.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description lists example parameters (q_keywords, contact_label_ids, etc.) but does not elaborate on their semantics beyond what the schema provides. It adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'YOUR Apollo CRM contacts', and explicitly distinguishes it from the prospect database, which sets it apart from sibling tools like apollo_search_people.

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 indicates when to use (searching CRM contacts vs prospect database) and lists example parameters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools