Generect Live API MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

Submit a bulk job

start_bulk_job

Submits up to 50 approved records for asynchronous bulk processing and returns a job_id for polling or webhook 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: a submitted job keeps running (and charging) even if nobody polls it. Meant for a list the user has approved. get_bulk_job polls it, and a webhook (create_webhook) reports when it finishes.

Input 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

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: billing at the single-record rate, reservation of the whole cost at submit time, and continued charging even if nobody polls the job. This is exactly the kind of billing and lifecycle disclosure an agent needs for a non-destructive but billable asynchronous operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and result, then covers cost, approval, and follow-up mechanisms in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential lifecycle: asynchronous submission, job_id, billing reservation, approval expectation, polling via get_bulk_job, and webhook notification. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 parameter details are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 50-record limit and job_id return but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submit up to 50 records for asynchronous processing and get a job_id back. It clearly distinguishes this bulk asynchronous tool from the single-record tool and from get_bulk_job, which polls the submitted job.

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 explains that the tool is meant for a list the user has approved and names get_bulk_job for polling and create_webhook for completion notification. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over repeatedly calling the single-record tool, beyond the 50-record batch limit.

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