Skip to main content
Glama

Close Crm

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Close Search Leads

close_search_leads
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search or list leads (companies/accounts in Close) using Close's query language. Returns a data array of leads (with id, display_name, contacts, status, custom fields) plus has_more and total_results. The query param accepts Close search syntax, e.g. name:"Acme", status_label:"Potential", email_address:@example.com, lead_created_within:7d, or free text. Omit query to list all leads. Page with _limit (max 200) and _skip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_skipNoNumber of results to skip for pagination (default 0)
queryNoClose query string. Examples: `name:"Acme Inc"`, `status_label:"Potential"`, `email_address:@acme.com`, `lead_created_within:30d`. Free text also works. Omit to list all leads.
_limitNoResults per page (default 100, max 200)
_apiKeyYesClose API key

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the return structure (data, has_more, total_results), pagination limits, and default _limit. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent.

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?

The description is one concise paragraph with clear structure, examples, and no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured but remains effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return fields and pagination. It covers usage, query syntax, and parameter semantics, leaving no major gaps for this tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by providing query syntax examples, explaining the effect of omitting 'query', and clarifying pagination behavior for _limit and _skip.

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?

The description clearly states it searches or lists leads in Close using the Close query language, with specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like close_get_lead by focusing on search and list functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to include a query vs. omitting it to list all leads, and how to paginate. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like close_get_lead or close_list_contacts.

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

All Close Crm toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.

Resources