Boardroom Revenue Control

Get one lead

crm_get_lead

Read-onlyIdempotent

One lead — notes, events, stage history and open tasks. Phone, e-mail and messenger ids are MASKED unless this key also holds crm:read_pii, which the workspace owner grants separately. Scoped to this workspace: a lead id from elsewhere reads as not_found. [scope: crm:read]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lead_id`	Yes	UUID of the lead.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	False when the call was refused or failed; see error.
`error`	No	Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false.
`message`	No	Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / lead_id / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false."
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string)."
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "False when the call was refused or failed; see error.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false). It discloses PII masking rules, the required crm:read_pii privilege and that it's granted separately, workspace scoping with a not_found cross-workspace behavior, and the required scope crm:read. These are crucial behavioral details the agent cannot infer from structured fields. Annotations already cover the safety profile, but this adds substantial value.

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 concise sentences that front-load the return contents, then the security and scoping constraints. The scope tag at the end is compact. Could be slightly more front-loaded on PII masking, but no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (PII masking, cross-workspace behavior) and the presence of an output schema (return format doesn't need re-explaining), the description covers everything an agent needs: content, permissions, scoping, and required scope. Complete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID of the lead). The description adds context about the lead_id source (scoped to workspace, cross-workspace reads as not_found) and that only one lead is returned. For a one-param tool, baseline is 4 when the description adds some semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: retrieves a single lead. It enumerates what is returned (notes, events, stage history, open tasks), which distinguishes it from crm_list_leads. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against sibling tools like crm_list_leads or crm_leads_without_task, preventing a 5.

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: it's a read-by-id tool, so an agent would naturally use it when it already has a lead_id. But there's no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., list_leads for browsing), and no when-not-to-use. Minimum viable context is present, but guidelines are not spelled out.

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

All Boardroom Revenue Control 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.