Create a new lead list scoped to the request's app. Use this when the user wants to organise leads into a named bucket (e.g. 'Q4 Targets', 'Hot Founders'). The new list starts empty; populate it later via approve_leads with action='approve' and the new list_id, or by editing the list manually.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name for the list (1-100 chars) | |
| description | No | Optional one-sentence description of what the list is for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context: the list starts empty and is populated later via approve_leads with action='approve' plus the new list_id. That downstream workflow detail is genuine value beyond the structured fields, though it omits whether the call returns the new list_id or what happens on duplicate names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, usage trigger, and follow-up behavior. No filler or restatement of the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and post-creation workflow. The only gap is not stating that the new list_id is returned, which the agent would need to chain into the approve_leads step it recommends.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name with 1-100 char bound, optional description) are already documented. The description mentions naming a bucket but adds no format, uniqueness, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new lead list') plus scope ('scoped to the request's app'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_lists, get_list, and rename_list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use this when the user wants to organise leads into a named bucket' gives a clear triggering condition with concrete examples ('Q4 Targets', 'Hot Founders'). It does not name a when-not condition or contrast against sibling creation paths, so it stops short of the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.