Enrich Layer MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

enrich_reverse_email

Read-only

Look up a person's professional network profile using their email address to identify career details, company, and role.

Instructions

Look up a person's professional network profile by their email address. Cost: 3 credits.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "enrich_reverse_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Email address to look up, e.g. johndoe@enrichlayer.com
`lookup_depth`	No	Depth of lookup.
`enrich_profile`	No	Enrich result with cached profile data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the cost of 3 credits, which is valuable. It doesn't describe other behaviors like rate limits or result format, but given annotations present, this is adequate.

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?

Very concise: one sentence plus cost. It's front-loaded and easy to parse. Could arguably be a 5, but it does pack the purpose and cost effectively with zero fluff.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with full parameter documentation and read-only annotation, the description suffices. It adds the cost factor and indicates the return type (professional network profile). No output schema, but the description hints at the result. It's complete enough for typical use.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), and the description doesn't elaborate on them. The cost mention is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the action (look up) and resource (person's professional network profile) keyed by email. It implies a specific use case that differentiates from sibling tools like enrich_reverse_phone, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have an email address, but it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar lookups (e.g., person_lookup via name). No explicit exclusion criteria.

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