Meta Council

Convert Lead To Deal

convert_lead_to_deal

Destructive

Convert an owned outreach lead into a deal and advance the lead into the deal stage of the funnel (never downgrading an already-closed lead). Optional deal fields mirror create_deal; lead_id is required.

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": {
      "lead_id": "<lead_id>"
    },
    "name": "convert_lead_to_deal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No
`stage`	No
`title`	No
`amount`	No
`company`	No
`lead_id`	Yes
`currency`	No	Exactly three ASCII letters, such as USD; saved uppercase. Omit for USD. Syntax only, not an ISO registry.
`probability`	No
`expected_close_date`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "text"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / currency / description

Added value: +"Exactly three ASCII letters, such as USD; saved uppercase. Omit for USD. Syntax only, not an ISO registry."

addedInput schema / properties / currency / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{3}$"
```

AddedJul 19, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the lead is advanced into the deal stage and that an already-closed lead is never downgraded. It does not detail permissions or full side effects, but it meaningfully supplements the safety signals.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the conversion action, the funnel advancement guard, the create_deal mirroring, and the required lead_id. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a destructive 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and one important guard but omits most parameter details and does not explain what happens to the original lead after conversion. Annotations cover the safety profile, which helps, but the low schema coverage means the description should do more. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only states that lead_id is required and that optional deal fields mirror create_deal; it does not explain the stage enum, amount constraints, currency format, probability range, or expected_close_date. This leaves most parameter semantics to the schema, which itself is sparse.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: convert an owned outreach lead into a deal and advance the lead into the deal stage. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_deal and clarifying that optional deal fields mirror it while lead_id is required. An agent can identify the tool's core action without opening the 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?

The description clearly implies usage for converting an owned outreach lead, and the 'mirror create_deal' note helps an agent choose between this tool and create_deal. It does not provide explicit when-not exclusions or prerequisites, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All Meta Council 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?