Retrieve a priority queue of new freelance leads ranked by payability, age, and rate, helping you decide which opportunities to pursue first.
Priority queue of NEW leads (payability + age + rate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only listing. The imperative name 'act_now' could be read as a mutating action, and the description does not resolve that ambiguity, nor mention auth, pagination, or side effects.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ranking criteria are compactly conveyed. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so result format need not be explained, but for a tool embedded among ~30 overlapping lead/outreach siblings the definition supplies no routing guidance and no limit semantics. It is too thin to let an agent confidently choose it.
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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a bare default of 8, and the description says nothing about it (e.g., max queue size or truncation behavior). With one undocumented param, the description does not compensate for the schema 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 identifies the resource ('priority queue of NEW leads') and even the scoring criteria (payability, age, rate), but it uses no verb and gives no hint of the operation performed (return? act on?). It also fails to differentiate from near-identical siblings such as hot_leads, chase_leads, and queue_outreach.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to call act_now versus hot_leads, chase_leads, or follow_ups, all of which plausibly serve the same lead-prioritization need. The '(payability + age + rate)' parenthetical hints at ranking logic but not at selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.