Tulina

lemlist_add_lead_variables

Set custom variables on a lead — merged into its personalization data, e.g. for {{variableName}} placeholders in campaign templates.

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": {
      "lead_id": "<lead_id>",
      "variables": "<variables>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_add_lead_variables"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`lead_id`	Yes
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`variables`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the merge semantics (values are merged into existing personalization data rather than replacing it), which is the most important behavioral trait here. However it says nothing about what happens on key collision, whether it requires a write-scoped credential, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the effect stated before the rationale, and a concrete placeholder example that earns its place. No filler, though it is short enough that it leaves room unused.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested object parameter, the description covers the essential semantics but omits error behavior, overwrite semantics, and confirmation of what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

Coverage is 71%, with the two required parameters (lead_id, variables) carrying no schema description at all. The description compensates for variables by explaining they become template placeholders, but adds nothing about lead_id or about the format/nesting of the variables object. Baseline 3 fits given broad schema coverage on the bookkeeping parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (set custom variables on a lead) plus the effect (merged into personalization data) and the downstream use ({{variableName}} placeholders in campaign templates). It is clearly distinct from neighbouring lemlist tools like create_lead or enrich_lead, though none are named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the placeholder example: use it when a campaign template needs per-lead personalization values. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative of passing variables at lead creation time (lemlist_create_lead), and no prerequisites stated.

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

All Tulina 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?