Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mach GTM MCP

Mach GTM MCP

by verma6uc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

research_prospect

Generate a B2B prospect research brief before outreach, including fit score, pain points, buying signals, conversation starters, and proof points.

Instructions

Generate a research brief for a B2B prospect before outreach. Returns fit score, pain points, buying signals, conversation starters and suggested proof points.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_name": "<company_name>",
      "prospect_title": "<prospect_title>"
    },
    "name": "research_prospect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
your_icpNoYour ICP description to score fit against.
company_nameYesTarget company name.
prospect_titleYesJob title of the person you're reaching out to.
company_websiteNoCompany website URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about cost, latency, external data sources, rate limits, or what happens with missing inputs. It only lists return categories, which is output content rather than behavioral traits.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads purpose and timing, the second enumerates outputs. There is no filler and nothing is buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably informative about the return shape but leaves open key questions: how long the brief is, whether it's cached, what data sources are used, and whether the ICP string is defaulted. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter research 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% with all four parameters documented (your_icp, company_name, prospect_title, company_website), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra parameter meaning — it doesn't explain how your_icp affects the fit score or whether company_website is optional-but-recommended.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('research brief for a B2B prospect') and names the trigger point ('before outreach'). The enumerated output fields (fit score, pain points, buying signals, conversation starters, proof points) further distinguish it from siblings like score_lead or draft_outreach.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Timing is implied by 'before outreach' and the sibling set (draft_outreach, score_lead, build_sequence) suggests ordering, but the description never explicitly says when to use this vs score_lead or when-not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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