The structured window of recent outreach leads (activity in the ~30 days before the latest report): per lead, the conversation summary, last message (who/when/text), LinkedIn profile link, owning salesperson, and current status. Requires the outreach section in scope; an own-leads-only key sees only its own leads, while an unrestricted key sees every salesperson's, each row carrying its owner slug.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: data access is scoped by key type, and each row carries an owner slug. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it address edge cases like empty results or exact date boundary behavior, but for a get-style tool this is reasonably transparent.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core resource ('structured window of recent outreach leads') and then lists details. Every clause earns its place, though the long colon/semicolon structure could be split into separate sentences for easier parsing.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the approximate 30-day window, the required section in scope, and key scoping. It omits ordering, pagination, or exact behavior when the outreach section is absent, but it is sufficient for most calling scenarios.
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 input schema has zero parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description appropriately explains output content rather than parameters, since there are none to document.
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 identifies the resource as 'recent outreach leads' and enumerates the per-lead fields (conversation summary, last message, LinkedIn link, owner, status), so the tool's purpose is clear. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like get_lead_status, which targets a single lead's status, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.
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 description provides a concrete precondition: 'Requires the outreach section in scope' and explains key-based scoping ('own-leads-only key sees only its own leads, while an unrestricted key sees every salesperson's'). It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.