Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Radar noEixo

by com.noeixodigital
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List domain checker leads

list_domain_checker_leads
Read-only

📊 GARIMPO LEADS — Lista e CONTA leads do Garimpo Leads (/domain-checker) com filtros. Retorna estatísticas (total, analisados, com e-mail, com telefone/WhatsApp, com ambos, sem contato) + uma amostra de leads. "Analisado" = já teve score/perfil/mensagem gerados pela IA. Ex.: para "quantos leads analisados têm e-mail e telefone", chame com analyzed="true" e leia stats.com_email/com_telefone/com_ambos. Use limit=0 para só as estatísticas (sem listar leads).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_domain_checker_leads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoFiltra por UF, ex: SP, AM
tagNoFiltra por tag
faixaNoFaixa do score único: A (perfil + momento) | B (só perfil) | C (fora do perfil). Ainda em modo sombra.
limitNoMáx de leads na amostra (padrão 20, máx 100). Use 0 para só estatísticas.
queryNoBusca por domínio, nome, e-mail ou CNPJ
statusNoFiltra por status: QUEBRADO | SUSPEITO | OK | ERRO | novo
analyzedNo"true" = só analisados (com score); "false" = só não analisados
archivedNo"true" = arquivados; padrão só ativos
has_emailNo"true" = só com e-mail; "false" = só sem e-mail
has_phoneNo"true" = só com telefone/WhatsApp; "false" = só sem telefone
list_nameNoFiltra pela lista de origem (nome exato ou parte dele; ver list_lead_lists)
qualifiedNo"true" = só qualificados (score >= 50)
phone_tipoNoTipo do telefone analisado: celular | fixo | fixo_ou_celular | invalido
trabalhadoNo"true" = só marcados como abordados; "false" = só não abordados
target_user_idNo(Só o admin da plataforma) userId da conta a operar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it defines what 'Analisado' means, describes the returned statistics fields, and explains the limit=0 shortcut. It does not mention pagination limits or the max-100 cap behavior beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose then output description then example; every sentence carries information (definition, stats fields, limit=0 tip). Slightly dense with mixed-language branding and emoji, but no filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 15 optional params, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description fills the meaningful gaps: what is returned (stats fields + sample), what 'Analisado' means, and how to get stats-only. Return format is described at field level, so an agent can call it and interpret results without the missing output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by explaining the analyzed filter's meaning and, crucially, how to combine analyzed="true" with stats.com_email/com_telefone/com_ambos to answer a question. That cross-parameter guidance is genuine added value over the schema.

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 pair (list/count), the exact resource (Garimpo Leads leads from /domain-checker), and the return shape (stats + sample). It is clearly a read tool, distinguishable from mutation siblings like add_domain_checker_leads and update_domain_checker_lead, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with enrich_domain_checker_leads.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario (counting analyzed leads with email/phone) and a specific tip (limit=0 for stats only), and routes list_name lookups to list_lead_lists. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance versus the enrich and tag siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Radar noEixo toolsInspect
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