Sautikit

desk_update_lead

Updates a SautiDesk lead: stage (Won or Lost closes it and cancels its follow-ups; Lost needs a lost reason), value, currency, temperature, source, owner or queue. A closed lead cannot be changed.

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": {
      "lead_id": "<lead_id>"
    },
    "name": "desk_update_lead"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lead_id`	Yes	lead UUID
`purpose`	No	Required on tools that read data or reports; recommended on every tool. One sentence: what you are doing and why (for example "finding this caller's open ticket to answer them"). Building a report, dashboard, analytics or an export is a SautiDesk Pro feature done by the report tools, not by pulling records.
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 currency
`owner_id`	No	owner user UUID, or empty string to give it back to the queue (Supervisor licence)
`queue_id`	No	queue UUID, or empty string for no queue (Supervisor licence)
`stage_id`	No	move to this stage (Won or Lost closes the lead)
`lost_note`	No	required when the lost reason is Other
`source_id`	No	lead source UUID
`temperature`	No	hot, warm or cold
`value_minor`	No	deal value in minor units
`lost_reason_id`	No	required when moving to Lost

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses that moving to Won or Lost closes the lead, that closing cancels its follow-ups (a non-obvious side effect), and that closed leads become immutable. It doesn't mention the Supervisor licence needed for owner/queue clearing beyond what the schema already states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the mutable field list, followed by the closing/immutability caveat. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behaviors (closure semantics, follow-up cancellation, immutability) and the schema covers the rest. It could note what the call returns (the updated lead) or partial-update semantics, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter including the 'required when moving to Lost' coupling. The description's field list and the parenthetical about Won/Lost largely restate that, so it lands at the baseline rather than adding meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('a SautiDesk lead'), then enumerates exactly which attributes are mutable (stage, value, currency, temperature, source, owner, queue). That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like desk_create_lead, desk_get_lead, and desk_update_contact.

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?

Usage is implied through the constraint 'A closed lead cannot be changed' and the note that Lost requires a lost reason, which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no explicit routing guidance such as 'to change a contact instead use desk_update_contact' or prerequisites for reassigning owner/queue, so it stops short of a 4.

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

All Sautikit 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?