radar_checkUse only for an existing/known lead when the user asks what changed, whether commercial signals appeared, or whether Opportunity Delta increased or decreased.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website | No | Website of an existing CRM/history lead. | |
| google_place_id | No | Google Place ID of an existing CRM/history lead. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds minor behavioral context by indicating the tool evaluates change, commercial signals, and Opportunity Delta movement. It doesn't disclose any side effects or external data behavior beyond what annotations imply, but no contradiction exists.
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?
A single well-constructed sentence with no filler. The condition ('only for an existing/known lead') comes first and the trigger queries follow, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse when to use it.
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 two-parameter tool with a rich output schema and annotations, the description covers usage context well. It could note that at least one of website or google_place_id is required for a meaningful call, but the 'existing/known lead' context and schema make this inferable.
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 100%, so both parameters (website and google_place_id) already have explanatory text. The description reinforces that the lead must be 'existing/known' but adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema.
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 specific resource ('existing/known lead') and specific triggers ('what changed, whether commercial signals appeared, or whether Opportunity Delta increased or decreased'). The title's 'Check opportunity radar' is reinforced with concrete criteria, and the 'existing/known lead' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling lead-discovery tools.
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 explicitly says 'Use only for an existing/known lead' and enumerates the exact user queries that should trigger this tool. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the 'only existing/known lead' exclusion is strong enough for an agent to route away from new-lead discovery tools like discover_leads or find_opportunities.
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.
Several tools overlap or duplicate: run_sales_mission intentionally duplicates check_sales_mission_status and get_sales_mission_result, and there are multiple capability/routing tools (get_capabilities, match_alpinelead_capability, get_alpinelead_recommendation_packet, recommend_next_tool) with similar purposes. Blank descriptions for several nexus_* tools make their boundaries even harder for an agent to determine.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The set mixes prefixed families (agentpub_*, nexus_*, predictive_*_info), noun-only names (winning_pattern, learning_engine), reversed noun_verb names (radar_check, hunter_run), and get/check/run/status variants for closely related operations.
56 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server surface. Many are one-off info, status, or diagnostic tools that could be consolidated into parameterized tools. This places an excessive routing burden on the agent and dilutes the core sales workflow.
The core lead-to-CRM workflow is fairly complete: discovery, analysis, qualification, sales kit generation, HubSpot push, and learning/feedback loops are covered. However, there are notable gaps such as no way to list or retrieve saved analyses, no explicit stop/cancel for Hunter or Sales Mission runs, and no update/cancel operations for Nexus tasks.