AIアシスタントをLeadloadz B2Bリード生成プラットフォームに接続するModel Context Protocol (MCP)サーバーです。
リード検索 — 自然言語クエリを使用して検証済みのB2Bリードを検索
メール検証 — 到達可能性スコアリングを備えたリアルタイムのメール検証
統計取得 — 利用状況と残りのクォータを確認
Related MCP server: LeadClaw
インストールは不要です。AIクライアントから直接サーバーを実行できます：
npx -y @leadloadz/mcp-servernpm install -g @leadloadz/mcp-server
leadloadz-mcpこのサーバーを使用するにはLeadloadz APIキーが必要です。
leadloadz.comでサインアップ
Dashboard → API Tokensに移動
新しいトークンを生成
トークン値をコピー
claude_desktop_config.jsonに追加します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"leadloadz": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}ClineのMCP設定に追加します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"leadloadz": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}stdioトランスポートをサポートするすべてのMCPクライアントで使用可能です：
{
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}変数 | 必須 | デフォルト | 説明 |
| はい | — | Leadloadz APIトークン |
| いいえ |
| APIベースURL |
| いいえ |
| リクエストタイムアウト（ミリ秒） |
# 依存関係のインストール
npm install
# ビルド
npm run build
# 型チェック
npm run typecheck
# ローカルテスト
node dist/index.js以下の場合に新しいバージョンを公開してください：
新しいツールの追加または既存のツールスキーマの変更
MCPレスポンスに影響を与えるAPIエンドポイントの動作変更
MCPサーバーコードのバグ修正
依存関係の更新（特に @modelcontextprotocol/sdk）
環境変数または設定オプションの変更
以下の場合には公開しないでください：
メインのLeadloadzウェブアプリの変更（これは別のコードベースです）
Next.jsアプリ内のAPIルート（MCPサーバーはそれらをプロキシします）
データベーススキーマ（メインアプリで処理されます）
UIコンポーネントやマーケティングページ
必要に応じて src/ 内のファイルを編集します。ローカルでテストします：
npm run build
npm testnpm version patch # バグ修正用
npm version minor # 新機能用
npm version major # 破壊的変更用バージョンを変更した場合は、一致するように server.json を更新します：
{
"version": "1.0.X",
"packages": [
{
"version": "1.0.X"
}
]
}git add .
git commit -m "変更内容を記述"
git push origin masterecho "//registry.npmjs.org/:_authToken=YOUR_NPM_TOKEN" > .npmrc
npm publish --access public
rm -f .npmrc注意: npmトークンは npm_ で始まります。安全に保管し、決してコミットしないでください。
新しいnpmバージョンを公開するたびに、Anthropic MCPレジストリを更新する必要があります：
# ログイン（トークンは期限切れになるため、毎回実行する必要がある場合があります）
./mcp-publisher login github
# デバイス認証フローに従います：
# 1. https://github.com/login/device にアクセス
# 2. 表示されたコードを入力
# 3. アプリケーションを承認
# 公開
./mcp-publisher publish重要: package.json の mcpName は、server.json の name と完全に一致している必要があります（大文字と小文字を区別します）。現在、両方とも io.github.Ali1041/leadloadz を使用しています。
プラットフォーム | URL | 目的 |
npm | パッケージ配布 | |
GitHub | ソースコード | |
Anthropic MCP Registry | 公式Anthropicディレクトリ | |
Glama.ai | コミュニティディレクトリ | |
PulseMCP | コミュニティディレクトリ | |
Smithery.ai | コミュニティディレクトリ | |
MCP.Directory | コミュニティディレクトリ |
「Token expired」エラー:
./mcp-publisher login github を再実行してください
「You do not have permission」エラー:
server.json の名前がGitHubのユーザー名と大文字小文字を含めて一致していることを確認してください: io.github.Ali1041/leadloadz
package.json の mcpName が完全に一致していることを確認してください
「Validation failed」エラー:
説明は100文字以下である必要があります
server.json のすべての必須フィールドが存在する必要があります
npmパッケージが一致するバージョンですでに公開されている必要があります
APIキーがログに記録されたり、エラーメッセージで公開されたりすることはありません
情報漏洩を防ぐため、すべてのエラーはサニタイズされます
サーバーはHTTPS経由でLeadloadz APIと直接通信します
レート制限はLeadloadz APIによって強制されます
ウェブサイト: leadloadz.com
問題報告: GitHub Issues
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.
