get_leadFetch one CRM lead in the selected workspace by lead id, including status, source, assignee, tags, custom fields, score, notes and next action. Use search_leads first when you only know a name, email, phone or company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The lead id returned by search_leads. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the scoping constraint ('in the selected workspace') and detailing the fields included in the response. It does not contradict any annotation, and while it doesn't mention error behavior, the added field context is useful for a get-one-tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the second sentence provides an important usage alternative. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter get tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource, the lookup key, the response fields, and the alternative tool. It slightly lacks explicit statements about response shape or not-found behavior, but the output schema is not provided, and the description's field list partially compensates. Overall it is well-rounded given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% coverage with a single 'id' parameter described as 'The lead id returned by search_leads.' The tool description reinforces this by saying 'by lead id' and directing users to search_leads when they lack the id. This adds practical context for how to obtain the parameter value, going slightly beyond the schema's description.
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 clearly states 'Fetch one CRM lead in the selected workspace by lead id', which specifies the verb (fetch), resource (CRM lead), and scope (by lead id in selected workspace). The list of included fields (status, source, assignee, tags, etc.) further clarifies what the tool returns. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_deal or get_contact by explicitly naming the resource type.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use search_leads first when you only know a name, email, phone or company.' This tells the agent exactly when to use an alternative tool, and implies that get_lead is appropriate when the lead id is already known. This is a clear when-to-use vs alternative distinction.
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.
Tools are generally separated by entity and action, with helpful cross-references such as get_marketplace vs list_channel_products vs check_channel_readiness. The main soft spots are update_product vs adjust_stock for stock changes and the many list_/search_/get_ triplets, but descriptions mostly make the boundaries clear.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, search_*, update_*, transition_deal, configure_pipeline, and so on. Despite the large count, the naming is highly predictable.
52 tools is an extreme surface for an agent to reason over, even though the underlying domain is broad. The set could be consolidated substantially without losing core functionality.
Most core lifecycle workflows are covered across leads, contacts, companies, products, orders, and activities. However, there are notable gaps: deals cannot be updated except by stage transition, activities cannot be edited or rescheduled, and there are no delete operations at all, only status-based archiving.