get_lead_totalsLead pipeline totals from the Leads tab: leads, booked, won, lost, and won revenue. Test leads are excluded.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_lead_totals"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, while the description adds the useful scoping facts that data comes from the Leads tab and test leads are excluded. It does not clarify the reporting period, refresh behavior, or currency basis for won revenue.
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?
Two compact sentences front-load the resource and returned measures, then state the important test-lead exclusion. There is no redundant or promotional wording.
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 simple no-input aggregate, the source, measure list, and exclusion provide enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. With no output schema, the unspecified time window and revenue currency or format remain meaningful gaps.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so there are no argument meanings, defaults, or formats for the description to explain. Its focus on the fixed data source and included metrics is appropriate for a zero-input operation.
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?
The description clearly identifies a lead-pipeline aggregation and enumerates its measures: leads, booked, won, lost, and won revenue. It does not explicitly distinguish these totals from broader reporting siblings such as get_performance_summary or get_latest_report.
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?
The wording implies using the tool when the five listed Leads-tab aggregates are needed. It provides no explicit when-not guidance or alternative tool for other reporting needs.
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.