dismiss_reply_leadMark one reply lead as skipped so it stops being offered. Nothing is posted. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes | The lead_id from list_reply_leads. | |
| brand_id | Yes | Brand workspace id from list_brands | |
| user_goal | No | Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / user_goalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation is idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds two genuinely new facts — no external post is created and the call costs no credits. That is real context beyond the structured fields, though reversibility of the dismissal is not stated.
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?
Three short sentences, effect first, caveats ('Nothing is posted. Free.') immediately after. No wasted words.
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 state-change tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects and cost. Only the reversibility of a skip is unaddressed.
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%, including pointers to list_reply_leads and list_brands for the required UUIDs, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about lead_id, brand_id or the optional user_goal.
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?
States a specific verb (mark as skipped) and resource (one reply lead) plus the effect (stops being offered). It implicitly contrasts with approve_reply_lead via 'skipped' but does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
'so it stops being offered' implies the usage context, but it never says when to use this over approve_reply_lead or what happens if the lead is re-surfaced later. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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.