Generect Live API MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

Enrich one lead

enrich_lead

Retrieve a profile for one known person by Generect ID, LinkedIn URL, or work email, with reverse lookup and optional compact or full record output.

Instructions

Full profile for one known person, by Generect id, LinkedIn URL or work email (reverse lookup). Billable: about $0.02 per record found (not-found is refunded) at the Tier 0 list price. Accounts can pay a different rate: get_balance returns this account's prices, and every response reports what was actually spent in cost.amount_charged_usd. Not found costs nothing. The id from a search or preview result is the most accurate identifier. start_bulk_job handles many people at once.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Generect lead id from search/preview.
`mode`	No	Data mode. "database" = Generect's own index: sub-second, free counts, free thin rows (see detail) or cheaper full rows; it accepts a subset of the filters today and names any it rejects. "realtime" = live LinkedIn lookup, 5–60s, billed per row, accepts every realtime filter. "auto" (default) tries database first and escalates to realtime only if a filter you passed is rejected there (the escalation is reported, and is refused above the per-call spend ceiling). Pick "database" explicitly when a record from the last 12 months is good enough and cost matters more than freshness.
`email`	No	Work email, for reverse lookup.
`compact`	No	Default true: return a small per-lead summary (including the Generect `id`, which every later step accepts). Set false for the full raw record (~80 fields) — only worth it when you specifically need skills, education or other deep fields.
`timeout_ms`	No	Request timeout in milliseconds.
`linkedin_url`	No	LinkedIn profile URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cost`	No
`lead`	No
`mode`	No
`found`	No
`company`	No
`test_mode`	No
`test_mode_notice`	No
`vocabulary_warnings`	No
`deprecated_params_ignored`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.12.2Oct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedInput schema / properties / mode / description

Previous value: -"Data mode. \"database\" = cached, sub-second, cheaper, free counts, core filters only. \"realtime\" = live LinkedIn lookup, 5–60s, pricier, supports every filter. \"auto\" (default) tries database first and only escalates to realtime if a filter you passed is unsupported there — an escalation is reported in the response. Pick \"database\" explicitly when a record from the last 12 months is good enough and cost matters more than freshness."New value: +"Data mode. \"database\" = Generect's own index: sub-second, free counts, free thin rows (see detail) or cheaper full rows; it accepts a subset of the filters today and names any it rejects. \"realtime\" = live LinkedIn lookup, 5–60s, billed per row, accepts every realtime filter. \"auto\" (default) tries database first and escalates to realtime only if a filter you passed is rejected there (the escalation is reported, and is refused above the per-call spend ceiling). Pick \"database\" explicitly when a record from the last 12 months is good enough and cost matters more than freshness."

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_params_ignored / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / vocabulary_warnings / items
```
Added value: +{}
```

Addedv0.9.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses billing behavior in detail (about $0.02 per found record, refunded on not-found, account-specific pricing via get_balance, actual spend in cost.amount_charged_usd) plus the auto-mode escalation rule and its spend ceiling — none of which is in the annotations. Annotations cover open-world/non-destructive traits; the description adds the cost and escalation context an agent needs before calling a billable tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and identifiers, then cost, then escalation/routing — a sensible order with no filler. The pricing clauses are dense but each carries decision-relevant information for a billable call.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: cost, refunds, escalation behavior, identifier preference, and the bulk alternative.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds ranking guidance by saying the `id` is the most accurate identifier and framing email as reverse lookup, which the schema does not state. It does not elaborate on `mode`, `compact`, or `timeout_ms`, but those are already fully documented in 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full profile for one known person') and enumerates the accepted identifier types, including that email is a reverse lookup. This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like search_leads and preview_leads.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use the `id` from search/preview for accuracy, and use start_bulk_job for many people at once. However, it never distinguishes itself from closer siblings like get_lead_by_url or resolve_profile, which appear to overlap substantially.

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