Skip to main content
Glama

Leadconnector

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Changes

recent_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's new with X" / "latest on Y" / "what happened to Z this week / month / quarter" / "updates on Acme" / "news on Tesla recently" / "what's happening with Apple" — change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call. Fans out to SEC EDGAR (filings since since), GDELT→GNews fallback (news mentions in window — GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), USPTO (patents granted; PatentsView API sunset May 2025 so this soft-fails until reactivated). since accepts ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative shorthand ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Returns structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile (filings + fundamentals + LEI + patents) regardless of window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today.
sinceYesWindow start — ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193").

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description reveals parallel execution, fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews on rate limits/5xx), PatentsView soft-fail post-May 2025, and output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is roughly 5 sentences, front-loaded with examples, and every sentence serves a purpose (behavior, parameters, sibling reference). No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately explains returns (structured changes[], total_changes, citation URIs). For a multi-source tool with fallback, this provides sufficient guidance for an agent.

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 already covers parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by giving concrete examples for since, value (ticker/CIK), and suggesting typical monitoring windows. It does not rely on schema alone.

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 provides a change feed for a company over a time window, listing specific sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It contrasts with sibling entity_profile (static profile vs. dynamic changes), making its purpose distinct.

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 includes example queries and suggests typical since values ("30d" or "1m"). It also directs users to entity_profile for static profiles. Although it doesn't exhaustively list when not to use, the sibling distinction is sufficient.

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

All Leadconnector 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, or bet_research and polymarket_edges. The mix of CRM, data, and betting tools creates confusion about which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx) with prefixed names (leadconnector_*) and no clear pattern. Some names are vague (forget, remember) while others are specific.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set feels overstuffed for a server named 'Leadconnector'. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., Polymarket, Pipeworx), and the CRM subset is too small to justify the count.

Completeness2/5

For the Leadconnector CRM domain, only basic read operations are provided; missing create, update, delete for contacts, campaigns, and opportunities. The non-CRM tools are comprehensive but don't match the server's name.

Resources