Create a new, empty managed lead list.
Creating the list does not put anything in it, and it does not import anything locally — sync_lead_list does that. Call list_lead_lists first: each call creates a NEW list and nothing deduplicates by name.
Requires an API key. Costs no credits. Returns the created list with the id that sync_lead_list needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | List name (1-200 chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations: adds API-key requirement, zero credit cost, the non-deduplicating create behavior, and what the response contains ('the created list with the id that sync_lead_list needs'). Annotations cover safety/idempotency; the description covers auth, cost, and mutation semantics.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope caveats and operational facts; every sentence carries information. The paragraph breaks are slightly choppy but nothing is wasted prose.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return payload and its downstream use. Auth, cost, ordering prerequisite, and mutation semantics are all present for a one-parameter create 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 coverage is 100% with a single documented 'name' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic weight about that parameter by noting that nothing deduplicates on name, which tells the agent duplicates are permitted rather than rejected.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new, empty managed lead list') and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with sync_lead_list (which populates/imports) and list_lead_lists. An agent can place it precisely without opening any 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?
Gives explicit preconditions and routing: call list_lead_lists first, use sync_lead_list to actually import leads, and warns that each call creates a NEW list because nothing deduplicates by name. When-to-use and what-this-does-not-do are both stated.
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.