Ein Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server, der KI-Assistenten mit der B2B-Lead-Generierungsplattform Leadloadz verbindet.
Leads suchen — Finden Sie verifizierte B2B-Leads mithilfe von natürlichsprachlichen Abfragen
E-Mail verifizieren — E-Mail-Verifizierung in Echtzeit mit Zustellbarkeitsbewertung
Statistiken abrufen — Überprüfen Sie Ihre Nutzung und verbleibenden Kontingente
Related MCP server: LeadClaw
Keine Installation erforderlich. KI-Clients können den Server direkt ausführen:
npx -y @leadloadz/mcp-servernpm install -g @leadloadz/mcp-server
leadloadz-mcpSie benötigen einen Leadloadz-API-Schlüssel, um diesen Server zu verwenden.
Registrieren Sie sich unter leadloadz.com
Gehen Sie zu Dashboard → API Tokens
Generieren Sie ein neues Token
Kopieren Sie den Token-Wert
Fügen Sie dies zu Ihrer claude_desktop_config.json hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"leadloadz": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Fügen Sie dies zu Ihren Cline-MCP-Einstellungen hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"leadloadz": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Jeder MCP-Client, der den stdio-Transport unterstützt, kann Folgendes verwenden:
{
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}Variable | Erforderlich | Standard | Beschreibung |
| Ja | — | Ihr Leadloadz-API-Token |
| Nein |
| API-Basis-URL |
| Nein |
| Anfrage-Timeout in Millisekunden |
# Abhängigkeiten installieren
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Typ-Prüfung
npm run typecheck
# Lokal testen
node dist/index.jsVeröffentlichen Sie eine neue Version, wenn Sie:
Neue Tools hinzufügen oder bestehende Tool-Schemata ändern
Das Verhalten von API-Endpunkten ändern, das sich auf MCP-Antworten auswirkt
Fehler beheben im MCP-Server-Code
Abhängigkeiten aktualisieren (insbesondere @modelcontextprotocol/sdk)
Umgebungsvariablen oder Konfigurationsoptionen ändern
Veröffentlichen Sie NICHT bei Änderungen an:
Der Leadloadz-Haupt-Web-App (dies ist eine separate Codebasis)
API-Routen in der Next.js-App (der MCP-Server fungiert als Proxy für diese)
Datenbankschemata (wird von der Haupt-App verwaltet)
UI-Komponenten oder Marketing-Seiten
Bearbeiten Sie die Dateien in src/ nach Bedarf. Lokal testen:
npm run build
npm testnpm version patch # für Fehlerbehebungen
npm version minor # für neue Funktionen
npm version major # für Breaking ChangesWenn Sie die Version geändert haben, aktualisieren Sie server.json entsprechend:
{
"version": "1.0.X",
"packages": [
{
"version": "1.0.X"
}
]
}git add .
git commit -m "Beschreiben Sie Ihre Änderungen"
git push origin masterecho "//registry.npmjs.org/:_authToken=YOUR_NPM_TOKEN" > .npmrc
npm publish --access public
rm -f .npmrcHinweis: Das npm-Token beginnt mit npm_. Bewahren Sie es sicher auf und committen Sie es niemals.
Das Anthropic MCP Registry muss aktualisiert werden, wenn Sie eine neue npm-Version veröffentlichen:
# Login (Token läuft ab, daher müssen Sie dies möglicherweise jedes Mal tun)
./mcp-publisher login github
# Folgen Sie dem Geräte-Authentifizierungsablauf:
# 1. Gehen Sie zu https://github.com/login/device
# 2. Geben Sie den angezeigten Code ein
# 3. Autorisieren Sie die Anwendung
# Veröffentlichen
./mcp-publisher publishKritisch: Der mcpName in package.json MUSS exakt mit dem name in server.json übereinstimmen (Groß-/Kleinschreibung beachten). Derzeit verwenden beide io.github.Ali1041/leadloadz.
Plattform | URL | Zweck |
npm | Paketverteilung | |
GitHub | Quellcode | |
Anthropic MCP Registry | Offizielles Anthropic-Verzeichnis | |
Glama.ai | Community-Verzeichnis | |
PulseMCP | Community-Verzeichnis | |
Smithery.ai | Community-Verzeichnis | |
MCP.Directory | Community-Verzeichnis |
Fehler "Token expired":
Führen Sie ./mcp-publisher login github erneut aus
Fehler "You do not have permission":
Stellen Sie sicher, dass der Name in server.json exakt mit Ihrem GitHub-Benutzernamen übereinstimmt: io.github.Ali1041/leadloadz
Stellen Sie sicher, dass der mcpName in package.json exakt übereinstimmt
Fehler "Validation failed":
Die Beschreibung muss ≤ 100 Zeichen lang sein
Alle erforderlichen Felder in server.json müssen vorhanden sein
Das npm-Paket muss bereits mit der passenden Version veröffentlicht worden sein
Ihr API-Schlüssel wird niemals protokolliert oder in Fehlermeldungen angezeigt
Alle Fehler werden bereinigt, um Informationslecks zu verhindern
Der Server kommuniziert direkt über HTTPS mit den Leadloadz-APIs
Ratenbegrenzungen werden durch die Leadloadz-API durchgesetzt
Website: leadloadz.com
Probleme: GitHub Issues
E-Mail: support@leadloadz.com
MIT
Read current usage counters: searches performed, emails verified, and remaining quota. Read-only. Requires API key. Rate limit: 30/min per user. Use before batch operations to check available allowance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature, API key requirement, and rate limit (30/min per user). No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it adequately covers behavioral traits for a safe read operation.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load the purpose and add necessary behavioral info without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Provides enough context for a parameterless tool: what it reads, when to use it, and constraints. Lacks details on return format, but acceptable for simple stats retrieval.
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?
No parameters in input schema, so baseline score is 4. Description does not need to add parameter information.
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 it reads usage counters (searches, emails, quota). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'search_leads' and 'verify_email' by specifying a different resource and action.
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?
Explicitly advises to use before batch operations to check allowance. While it doesn't discuss when not to use or alternatives, the provided context is sufficient for a simple read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search indexed B2B contacts by role, company, location, or technology. Read-only; returns verified leads with deliverability scores. Requires API key. Rate limit: 30/min per user. Use verify_email after discovery to confirm deliverability before outreach.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Specific natural-language search query. Narrow criteria yield better precision (e.g., 'CTOs at Series A B2B SaaS in London') | |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Default: 10. Cap: 50. Higher values consume more quota. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, returns verified leads with deliverability scores, requires API key, and rate limit of 30/min per user.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value.
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 2-param search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains input (search criteria), behavior (read-only, deliverability scores), constraints (rate limit, API key), and follow-up action (verify_email). Complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions already detail both parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what's in the schema.
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?
Clearly states it searches indexed B2B contacts by role, company, location, or technology. Distinct from siblings get_user_stats and verify_email.
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?
Provides guidance on when to use (searching leads) and recommends verify_email for further action. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but implies context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check email deliverability in real-time: MX records, SMTP, disposable/role detection. Read-only. Requires API key. Rate limit: 30/min per user. Use after search_leads or before sending campaigns. Returns deliverability score and risk assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Single email address to verify. Must be a valid RFC-like address format. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature, API key requirement, and rate limit (30/min per user) without any annotations. Also describes return value (deliverability score and risk assessment).
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?
Concise, packing core purpose, behavior, guidelines, and return info into a few sentences. No wasted words, well front-loaded.
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?
Covers all essential aspects for a simple tool: purpose, behavior, auth, rate limit, usage context, and return summary. No gaps.
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?
Input schema already provides 100% coverage with description for 'email' parameter. Description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'Check email deliverability in real-time' with specific checks (MX records, SMTP, disposable/role detection). Differentiates from siblings like get_user_stats and search_leads by focusing on email verification.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use after search_leads or before sending campaigns', providing clear context. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but sufficiently guides usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6get_user_statssearch_leadsverify_emailv1.0.5get_user_statssearch_leadsverify_emailv0.1.0get_user_statssearch_leadsverify_emailScored across 3 tools
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: usage stats, lead searching, and email verification. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_user_stats, search_leads, verify_email).
Three tools is well-scoped for a lead generation and verification service, covering essential operations without redundancy.
The set covers the full workflow: check quota, search leads, and verify email deliverability. No missing critical operations given the read-only nature.
MCP server for Tomba email finder, verification, and contact enrichment API
Managed LinkedIn MCP server for AI agents: search, connect, message and enrich on accounts you own.
Hosted MCP for verified B2B lead campaigns with success-only billing.
Lead enrichment plus AI-written cold emails in one run.
