Search 130M+ B2B contacts and enrich profiles with verified emails & phone numbers via MCP
Critical gaps across all dimensions. The mcp.json file provides tool names and brief descriptions but NO input schemas, NO parameter definitions, NO output schemas, and NO error handling guidance. Both tools lack the structured definitions required for reliable LLM invocation. Descriptions are present but minimal (34-56 chars, below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM-optimized docs). No evidence of parameter types, constraints, or validation. This is a skeleton definition that cannot support safe agent composition.
Get verified email, phone numbers, and full profile for a contact via PID or LinkedIn URL.
Search 130M+ B2B contacts by job title, company, location, industry, seniority, and more.
No input schemas visible for either tool. Cannot determine required/optional parameters, types, constraints, or validation rules. LLMs cannot safely invoke these tools without guessing parameter structure.
Tool descriptions are 34-56 characters, below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM-optimized docs. 'Search 130M+ B2B contacts...' lacks WHEN to use this tool, what it returns, and how it differs from contact_enrich. Insufficient for reliable tool selection.
No output schemas documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract required fields (e.g., does people_search return contact IDs that contact_enrich accepts?). Breaks tool composition.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 39 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No parameter descriptions or type information. 'people_search' likely accepts job_title, company, location, etc., but none are documented. LLMs must hallucinate parameter names and types.
No error handling guidance. If a search returns no results, or contact enrichment fails, the LLM has no recovery path. No distinction between retryable, user-fixable, or fatal errors.