Funkel AI

approve_leads

Destructive

Approve or reject one or more discovered leads. Two-phase: first call returns a confirmation token + preview; the user reviews an inline card and confirms; second call (with confirmation_token) commits the status flip. action='approve' requires campaign_id (the campaign the leads will be associated with); action='reject' does not. The tool stamps each lead's status + reviewed_at + campaign_id; downstream campaign-engine pipelines ingest approved leads through their normal path. Over MCP: call this tool once, without confirmation_token. It runs right away and returns the result.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "lead_ids": "<lead_ids>"
    },
    "name": "approve_leads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of leads in the batch (used in the confirm preview; mirrors len(lead_ids))
`action`	Yes	Decision applied to every lead in lead_ids
`lead_ids`	Yes	Discovered lead ids (from a prior find_leads result)
`campaign_id`	No	Required for action=approve; omitted for action=reject (UUID format, e.g. 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000)
`campaign_name`	No	Campaign name (used in the confirm preview)
`confirmation_token`	No	Phase-2 token (omit on phase-1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it names the fields stamped (status, reviewed_at, campaign_id), describes the two-phase preview/confirm mechanism, and notes downstream pipeline ingestion. It does not explicitly address reversibility, which would round this out.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is lengthened by overlapping two-phase narration and the 'over MCP: call once' instruction, which sit in tension and force the reader to reconcile them. Some sentences duplicate schema semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return (confirmation token + preview, then result). For a mutation tool it is largely complete, though it could state more about irreversibility given idempotent=false and destructive=true.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the conditional campaign_id requirement the description restates. The description adds context on what approval produces but little syntax/format detail beyond the schema, 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 pair (approve/reject) and resource (discovered leads) with clear scope ('one or more'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like find_leads and import_search_leads_to_list, which cover discovery/import rather than decisioning.

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?

Explains the conditional requirement (campaign_id needed for approve, not for reject) and the confirmation-token flow, which tells the agent how to invoke it. It lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing and the two-phase vs 'call once over MCP' framing is somewhat muddled.

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

All Funkel AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?