get-leadReturns one authorized lead using bounded contact, source, status, and service-interest fields; notes, budget, and internal summaries are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | No | Lead ID returned by search-leads. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result is limited to authorized leads and explicitly excluding notes, budget, and internal summaries—information an agent would not get from annotations alone.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently communicates field scope and exclusions. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy.
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 read-only, single-parameter lookup, the description covers included and excluded fields reasonably well. The main gap is that lead_id is not marked as required in the schema, and the description does not explicitly state that it must be supplied, though it is clearly the only parameter.
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 100%, and the lead_id parameter is already well described as 'Lead ID returned by search-leads.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one authorized lead'), and clarifies the scope by naming included field categories and explicit exclusions. This makes it clearly distinct from search-leads and the other get-* siblings.
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 singular 'one authorized lead' implies this is a detail lookup rather than a search, and the lead_id comes from search-leads. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over search-leads or other get-* tools, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.