Skip to main content
Glama
generect

Generect Live API MCP Server

Official
by generect

Submit a bulk job

start_bulk_job
Read-only

Submit up to 50 approved records for asynchronous email find, phone find, or enrichment. Get a job_id immediately, with costs reserved upfront. Poll the job or register a webhook for completion.

Instructions

Submit up to 50 records for asynchronous processing and get a job_id back. BILLABLE at the same per-record rate as the single-record tool — and the whole cost is RESERVED at submit time, so a submitted job keeps running (and keeps charging) even if you stop polling. Only submit a list the user has approved. Poll with get_bulk_job, or register a webhook to be told when it finishes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoEnrich jobs only: cached (cheaper) or live. Default "database".
itemsYesMax 50. email_find/phone_find: {lead_id} | {linkedin_url} | {first_name,last_name,domain|company}. enrich_leads: {id} | {linkedin_url} | {email}. enrich_companies: {id} | {linkedin_url} | {domain} | {name}.
job_typeYesWhat to do with the items. phone_find is by far the most expensive per record.
timeout_msNoRequest timeout in milliseconds.
confirm_spend_usdNoExplicit approval for an unusually large charge. Calls whose worst case exceeds $5 are refused unless this is set to at least the amount the tool reports. Only set it after the user has agreed to that number.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobNo
costNo
modeNo
droppedNo
job_typeNo
next_stepNo
submittedNo
test_modeNo
reservation_noteNo
test_mode_noticeNo
vocabulary_warningsNo
reserved_worst_case_usdNo
deprecated_params_ignoredNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool is BILLABLE and reserves cost, indicating a side effect (charging). This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, which implies the tool does not modify state or cause side effects. Per the rubric, a contradiction yields a score of 1 and flags annotation_contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences, each purposeful: core function, cost/billing, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids fluff. The all-caps emphasis on BILLABLE and RESERVED is intentional to highlight critical side effects, though slightly noisy, it does not detract.

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?

The description covers the core function, cost implications, approval requirement, and follow-up actions (polling/webhook). An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. However, the contradiction with readOnlyHint is a notable gap that could confuse an agent about side effects. Despite that, the description itself is fairly complete for a bulk job submission tool.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some context (billing, approval) but does not clarify parameter syntax or usage beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'up to 50' mirrors the schema's max on items. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 action: 'Submit up to 50 records for asynchronous processing and get a job_id back.' It names the resource (records), the operation (submit), and the outcome (job_id), distinguishing it from single-record tools like enrich_lead and from get_bulk_job which polls. The scope ('up to 50') and async nature differentiate it from siblings.

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?

It provides explicit conditions: 'Only submit a list the user has approved' and describes follow-up actions ('Poll with get_bulk_job, or register a webhook'). It implies this is for batch processing vs single-record tools, but does not explicitly state 'use for multiple records' or 'avoid for single records'. However, the context is clear enough.

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