Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp

apollo-mcp

by dyngai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apollo_search_tasks

Search tasks in Apollo.io by applying filters such as open/closed status, due date range, owner IDs, and additional criteria. Useful for managing CRM task lists.

Instructions

Search tasks. Accepts open_factor (open_tasks/closed_tasks/etc.), due_at_range, owner_ids, pagination, and a freeform 'extra' bag.

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_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
extraNo
per_pageNo
owner_idsNo
contact_idsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description mentions parameters like 'open_factor' and 'due_at_range' that are not present in the input schema, making it misleading. No annotations exist to provide behavioral context, so the description alone is inaccurate and fails to disclose important traits like pagination limits or default behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence but is not concise due to inaccuracies and overpromises parameters. It could be shorter and more accurate by listing only schema-defined parameters.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values. It fails to cover all schema parameters (e.g., contact_ids) and provides no usage context. For a 5-param tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only partially describes actual parameters (owner_ids, extra, pagination) while inventing others (open_factor, due_at_range). It does not explain page vs per_page behavior, owner_ids format, or the extra bag's structure, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool's purpose is stated as 'Search tasks,' which is a clear verb+resource pair. It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling search tools like apollo_search_people or apollo_search_contacts, which could cause confusion about the exact domain of tasks.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as apollo_create_task or other search tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or expected use cases.

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