Sergio by Serviche

Move a lead to another journey

move_lead_journey

Idempotent

Moves a lead to another follow-up journey (segmentId, as Settings > Lead follow-ups names them: read the lead program), at the same place in the sequence, as the lead's journey tag does. Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "segmentId": "<segmentId>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "move_lead_journey"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_id`	Yes
`segmentId`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Your id for this operation (8-128 of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -). Reuse it on every retry of the same operation; use a new one for a new operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true). The description adds genuinely new behavior: the lead lands at the same position in the sequence rather than at the start, and the lead's journey tag is kept consistent. It still omits permission requirements and failure modes, so it is good but not comprehensive.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The parenthetical 'as Settings > Lead follow-ups names them: read the lead program' is dense and slightly awkward to parse, but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and three required parameters, the description covers the main side effect but says nothing about the response, how to obtain or interpret task_id, or error behavior when the segment is invalid. Adequate but with clear holes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, with task_id and segmentId undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It clarifies segmentId as the identifier 'as Settings > Lead follow-ups names them' and points to reading the lead program, but task_id is never explained and the idempotency guidance duplicates the schema's own description.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Moves a lead to another follow-up journey') and names the key input (segmentId), which separates it from siblings like hold_lead_follow_ups or set_lead_outcome. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'read the lead program' implies a prerequisite step (fetch the program before calling), and the retry instruction gives recoverable-error guidance. However, it never says when to use this instead of hold_lead_follow_ups or edit_lead_step, and it omits what happens if the lead is already in the target journey.

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

All Sergio by Serviche 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?