search_by_intentFind conversations matching specific MEDDIC signals, intent score, or topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| client | No | Agency only: target a managed client org by its id to query that client's data. Omit for your own. | |
| meddic_signals | No | ||
| min_intent_score | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / clientAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Agency only: target a managed client org by its id to query that client's data. Omit for your own.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, result limits, output format, or how the search is executed, which would be useful beyond 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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the main purpose and does not waste the agent's attention on filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.
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?
With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent under-informed. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are ordered, or how the search handles missing criteria. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior in all scenarios.
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 only 20% (only 'client' is described). The description mentions MEDDIC signals, intent score, and topic, but does not explain the meaning of these parameters, the valid enum values for meddic_signals, or the range of min_intent_score. It also omits the 'days' parameter entirely, leaving a significant semantic gap.
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 clearly states the tool finds conversations by MEDDIC signals, intent score, or topic, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from the general get_conversations sibling by implying an intent-based search, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conversations or get_meddic_summary. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but get_conversations and search_by_intent both return conversations, and get_hot_leads vs get_lead_enrichment have some overlap. Descriptions clarify their specific purposes, so ambiguity is minimal.
The majority of tools follow the get_* pattern, but search_by_intent deviates. Otherwise, naming is consistent and readable.
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool focuses on a distinct aspect of buyer intent, from summaries to specific searches, without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers core needs: overview, listing, detail, enrichment, MEDDIC summary, knowledge gaps, and search. Missing are non-read operations and a general lead list (only hot leads), but these are minor gaps for an analytics-focused server.