Skip to main content
Glama
evascrape

Evascrape MCP server

Official
by evascrape
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Export an Apollo.io search

apollo_export

Export Apollo.io people search results past Apollo's export cap without consuming Apollo export credits. Supply the search URL; get a job ID to poll, then download verified-email leads.

Instructions

Export the results of a people search you already built on Apollo.io, past Apollo's own export cap and without consuming Apollo export credits. You must supply the Apollo search URL. Only leads that have a verified email address are delivered, so the count can be lower than the number Apollo displays. Costs $9 per 1,000. Returns a job id: poll job_status, then download.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_nameNoName for the export file.
apollo_urlYesA people search URL copied from Apollo.io, e.g. https://app.apollo.io/#/people?personTitles[]=cto. The URL must carry at least one filter (job title, location, company keywords or employee size); a bare URL is rejected because it would return everything. Filters Evascrape cannot read, such as a saved Apollo persona, are ignored, so the list can come back broader than the Apollo screen showed.
total_recordsYesMaximum leads to export. Multiple of 100, minimum 100, maximum 50000.
email_verificationNoExtra real-time verification for $5 per 1,000. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ($9 per 1,000), the verified-email-only delivery rule and why counts differ from Apollo's display, and the asynchronous job-id-then-poll pattern. The non-idempotent, write-like nature implied by the annotations is confirmed by returning a job id rather than data.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct load: prerequisites, edge-case behavior, cost, and the return/next-step flow. Front-loaded with purpose and constraint before the mechanics.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by explaining the job-id result and how to retrieve output. Cost, prerequisites, and count caveats are all covered, leaving no gap an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the field descriptions are already very detailed (including the filter-readability caveat), so the baseline is 3. The prose reiterates that the URL is mandatory but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Export the results of a people search') scoped to Apollo.io, which cleanly separates it from the google_maps_leads and linkedin_leads siblings. The added constraints (past the export cap, no Apollo export credits) sharpen what this tool specifically does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States the precondition explicitly ('You must supply the Apollo search URL') and describes the downstream workflow by naming the sibling tools to use next: 'poll job_status, then download'. Pricing context tells the agent when this is worth invoking versus cheaper alternatives.

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