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, address and where each was found; call again
with `offset` for the next 25.
| 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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the polling behavior: it returns the stage while running and returns leads 25 at a time when done. It also explains pagination semantics, which is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids repetition and clearly structures the polling and pagination behavior.
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 read-only polling tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the lifecycle, the result fields, the page size, and how to continue fetching. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It implicitly ties jobId to a Find Leads run and explicitly explains offset as the mechanism to fetch the next 25 leads. It could be more explicit that jobId is the identifier returned by findLeads, but it provides enough context.
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 states a specific action ('Follow a Find Leads run, and read its leads') and a clear resource (lead-search results). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like findLeads by clarifying it reads results after a run rather than starting one.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a Find Leads run, while it is running, and once it has finished. It gives pagination guidance with offset, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.