Check the status of a lead created via request_quote.
lead_id: UUID returned by request_quote api_key: the api_key used when the lead was created
Returns JSON with status (new/contacted/won/lost), company info, contact fields, budget, timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| lead_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only operation ('Check'), discloses the required authentication context (api_key used at creation), and describes the output format. It does not mention error behaviors or side effects, but for a simple status check this is adequate.
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 efficiently structured: a lead sentence, then a terse parameter list, then a one-line summary of the return value. No fluff, each sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides additional context about the relationship to request_quote and the authentication requirement. It covers all essential aspects for a simple two-parameter lookup tool: what it does, how to call it, and what to expect.
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 schema provides no descriptions, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: lead_id is a UUID from request_quote, and api_key is the one used at creation. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds practical meaning.
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's function: 'Check the status of a lead created via request_quote.' It specifies the resource (a lead) and the action (check status), and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_quote (which creates leads) and get_project/get_company (which retrieve other entities).
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 provides context by linking leads to request_quote and specifying required credentials (the api_key used at creation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.