Emailchaser

Update lead

update_lead

Idempotent

Updates a lead's contact details. Only the provided fields are changed.

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": "update_lead"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The numeric lead ID (returned when the lead was created)
`email`	No	Lead email address
`phone`	No	Phone number
`title`	No	Job title
`company`	No	Company name
`website`	No	Company website URL
`lastName`	No	Lead last name
`linkedin`	No	LinkedIn profile URL
`firstName`	No	Lead first name
`middleName`	No	Lead middle name
`customVariables`	No	Any attribute the named fields do not cover, e.g. { pageVisited: '/pricing' }. Each key becomes a merge tag usable in email copy as {key}. Keys match case-insensitively with spaces treated as underscores, so 'Page Visited' and 'page_visited' are the same tag.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact, that updates are partial/merge-style rather than full replacement, but says nothing about permissions, invalid-ID errors, or how to clear an existing field.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero waste; the identity of the operation and the most consequential semantic (partial update) are both front-loaded.

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?

With 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema and full annotations, a short description is defensible. Still, for a mutation tool the definition omits how to unset a field (null vs empty string vs omission) and what happens on an unknown lead ID, which are the gaps an agent would most likely hit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase "contact details" arguably undersells the surface, since the schema also carries title, company, website, linkedin and customVariables, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and slightly narrows the perceived scope.

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 ("Updates a lead's contact details") plus the partial-update rule, which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_lead and from narrower siblings like update_lead_category. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Only the provided fields are changed" implicitly tells the agent this is a patch operation where omitted fields are left alone, which is real usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention of the required `id` coming from a prior create/get, and no exclusion against sibling update tools.

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

All Emailchaser 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?