agencybloc_search_leads_by_phoneFind Sales Enablement records (leads) by phone number; the search is by phone only. Only accounts with the Sales Enablement module have them. POST salesEnablement/leads/searchphone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | Phone number to look up. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only search, and the description adds the important prerequisite that only Sales Enablement accounts have lead records. However, it does not describe result format, pagination, or other operational behavior beyond that module constraint.
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 short and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the module prerequisite and endpoint. It is appropriately sized, though the endpoint notation adds little for tool selection.
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 one-parameter read-only search with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be stronger by mentioning what the search returns, but no output schema exists and the core operational constraints are present.
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?
The sole parameter is fully described in the schema as the phone number to look up, and the description reinforces that the search is by phone only. The description adds little beyond the schema because schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter.
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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: finding Sales Enablement records (leads) by phone number. It also clarifies that the search is phone-only, which distinguishes it from broader lead retrieval such as get_lead.
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?
It gives clear usage context: use this when searching leads by phone number, and only accounts with the Sales Enablement module contain these records. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.