leadsStatusFollow a Find Leads run, and read its leads once it has finished.
Returns the stage while it runs. When done, returns the leads 25 at a time:
name, phone, email, website and address; call again with `offset` for the
next 25.Needs a free SnoopScan key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: this is an asynchronous job whose call returns a stage while running and data only on completion, results arrive in batches of 25, and a free SnoopScan key is required. It does not mention polling cadence or terminal/error states, which keeps it from a 5.
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, front-loaded with the tool's job, then return behavior, then the auth requirement. No filler or restatement of the title.
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?
An output schema exists so return field documentation is optional, yet the description still enumerates the returned fields and the batching model, and it flags the API key requirement. Only the lack of guidance on polling intervals or how to detect a failed run leaves a minor gap for an async job tool.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it explains `offset` concretely (fetch the next 25) rather than just naming it. `jobId` is only indirectly characterized as the identifier of a Find Leads run, leaving its provenance slightly implicit.
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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Follow a Find Leads run, and read its leads'), and its name/behavior clearly separate it from the sibling findLeads, which starts a run rather than reading one. An agent can tell this is the read/poll counterpart without opening either schema.
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?
It gives clear operating context: poll while the run is in progress, then page through results with `offset` 25 at a time. The prerequisite (a Find Leads run must exist) is implied by 'Follow a Find Leads run' rather than stated explicitly, and no exclusions or alternative tools are named, 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.