lead_submitSubmit the shopper's bound contact request to the named dealership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binding | Yes | ||
| comments | No | ||
| customer | Yes | ||
| rooftop_slug | Yes | ||
| disclosure_text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| error | No | Unknown and foreign thread ids are deliberately indistinguishable: both return invalid_params with message "unknown thread_id" (anti-enumeration). | |
| freshness | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "lead_id": {
+ "maxLength": 36,
+ "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "const": "accepted"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "lead_id",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Unknown and foreign thread ids are deliberately indistinguishable: both return invalid_params with message \"unknown thread_id\" (anti-enumeration).",
+ "properties": {
+ "auth_help_url": {
+ "description": "Present only when no credential was supplied for a capability that requires one. Points to human documentation for obtaining a key. Absent for invalid, pending, or disabled credentials, which are deliberately indistinguishable.",
+ "format": "uri",
+ "maxLength": 500,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "code": {
+ "enum": [
+ "rooftop_not_found",
+ "rooftop_inactive",
+ "unit_not_found",
+ "invalid_params",
+ "rate_limited",
+ "upstream_unavailable",
+ "capability_unavailable",
+ "identity_required",
+ "quota_exceeded",
+ "unit_held",
+ "quote_expired",
+ "rooftop_paused",
+ "handoff_duplicate",
+ "idempotency_conflict",
+ "price_unavailable",
+ "snapshot_expired",
+ "artifact_too_large",
+ "cursor_invalid",
+ "cursor_expired",
+ "ambiguous_identity",
+ "unsupported_in_country"
+ ]
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "maxLength": 500,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "retryable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "retryable"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "freshness": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "by_rooftop": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "last_ingest_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "maxLength": 40,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "fresh",
+ "stale",
+ "no_data"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "last_ingest_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxProperties": 500,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "by_rooftop"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title — it does not explain that this sends a real lead to a third party, that the action is irreversible/outbound, or what the 'binding' represents, which would be valuable context for a destructive open-world call.
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?
A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the tool's complexity.
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?
Placeholder.
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 0% across five parameters, including an opaque required 'binding' string, a 'disclosure_text' field, a 'rooftop_slug' identifier, and a nested customer object. The description only obliquely gestures at 'bound contact request' and 'named dealership'; it explains none of the parameter formats, constraints, or the email/phone either-or requirement.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Submit the shopper's bound contact request to the named dealership' tells an agent exactly what action is taken and on whose behalf. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'lead_prepare' or explain the relationship between the two, so an agent must infer the prepare→submit flow.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as lead_prepare. An agent gets no signal about when this should be called versus the other lead-related sibling.
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.