Generect Live API MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

Submit a bulk job

start_bulk_job

Submit up to 50 records for asynchronous processing and get a job ID back. Poll with get_bulk_job or register a webhook to know when it finishes.

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

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	Enrich jobs only: cached (cheaper) or live. Default "database".
`items`	Yes	Max 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_type`	Yes	What to do with the items. phone_find is by far the most expensive per record.
`timeout_ms`	No	Request timeout in milliseconds.
`confirm_spend_usd`	No	Explicit 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job`	No
`cost`	No
`mode`	No
`dropped`	No
`job_type`	No
`next_step`	No
`submitted`	No
`test_mode`	No
`reservation_note`	No
`test_mode_notice`	No
`vocabulary_warnings`	No
`reserved_worst_case_usd`	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
```
addedInput schema / properties / items / items / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read/write and open-world character), it discloses billing behavior, that cost is RESERVED at submit time, and that the job keeps charging even if polling stops — critical non-obvious behavior for a paid async tool. It also explains the confirm_spend_usd approval gate, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste; the cost/commitment warning is front-loaded immediately after the core action, which is exactly where a costly side effect should appear.

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 narration, and the description still names the job_id and the follow-up tools. Billing, approval, and polling semantics are all covered for a 5-parameter asynchronous 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 coverage is 100%, so mode, items, job_type, timeout_ms and confirm_spend_usd are already documented in-schema. The description adds cost context around the spend approval but does not add format or semantics beyond the schema for any individual parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Submit up to 50 records for asynchronous processing') and its primary output ('get a job_id back'). It also contrasts itself with the single-record tool by referencing the shared per-record rate, so an agent can separate it from enrich_lead/find_phone 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only submit a list the user has approved') and explicit next-step routing to 'get_bulk_job' or a webhook. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the single-record tool over batching, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Deploy Server