Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mark meeting booked on lead

mark_lead_meeting
Idempotent

Records that a meeting was actually booked with this lead: sets meetingBookedAt to now, sets the lead's category to meeting_booked and fires the LeadCategoryUpdate webhook. Emailchaser never infers meetings from reply text or calendars, so this explicit mark is the only way a meeting is counted (in campaign stats totals.meetings and in the outcomes report). Idempotent: repeating the call keeps the original timestamp and fires no second webhook.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "mark_lead_meeting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric lead ID (returned when the lead was created)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare write, non-destructive, and idempotent; the description goes further by naming the webhook side effect and category mutation, and by explaining exactly what idempotency means here (original timestamp preserved, no second webhook fired). It also clarifies downstream effects on campaign stats totals.meetings and the outcomes report, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and its side effects, then rationale, then idempotency behavior. Three sentences are dense and purposeful, though the accounting sentence (stats totals/outcomes report) could be trimmed without losing call-critical information.

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?

For a side-effecting mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, idempotency, and reporting consequences. It omits error behavior for an invalid or missing lead ID and any permission requirements, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no extra detail about the id format or error cases, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the work.

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 and resource ('Records that a meeting was actually booked with this lead') and enumerates the concrete effects: setting meetingBookedAt, setting category to meeting_booked, firing the LeadCategoryUpdate webhook. An agent can distinguish this from unmark_lead_meeting or update_lead_category without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear context for use and a strong rationale: Emailchaser never infers meetings from reply text or calendars, so this explicit mark is the only path to counting a meeting in stats. It does not explicitly name the inverse tool (unmark_lead_meeting) or spell out when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Emailchaser toolsInspect
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