Сервер Model Context Protocol (MCP), который подключает ИИ-ассистентов к платформе генерации B2B-лидов Leadloadz.
Поиск лидов — находите проверенные B2B-лиды с помощью запросов на естественном языке
Проверка email — проверка электронной почты в реальном времени с оценкой доставляемости
Получение статистики — проверяйте использование и оставшиеся квоты
Related MCP server: LeadClaw
Установка не требуется. ИИ-клиенты могут запускать сервер напрямую:
npx -y @leadloadz/mcp-servernpm install -g @leadloadz/mcp-server
leadloadz-mcpДля использования этого сервера вам понадобится API-ключ Leadloadz.
Зарегистрируйтесь на leadloadz.com
Перейдите в Dashboard → API Tokens
Создайте новый токен
Скопируйте значение токена
Добавьте в ваш claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"leadloadz": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Добавьте в настройки Cline MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"leadloadz": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Любой MCP-клиент, поддерживающий транспорт stdio, может использовать:
{
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@leadloadz/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"LEADLOADZ_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}Переменная | Обязательно | По умолчанию | Описание |
| Да | — | Ваш API-токен Leadloadz |
| Нет |
| Базовый URL API |
| Нет |
| Тайм-аут запроса в миллисекундах |
# Установка зависимостей
npm install
# Сборка
npm run build
# Проверка типов
npm run typecheck
# Тестирование локально
node dist/index.jsПубликуйте новую версию, когда вы:
Добавляете новые инструменты или меняете существующие схемы инструментов
Меняете поведение API-эндпоинтов, которое влияет на ответы MCP
Исправляете ошибки в коде MCP-сервера
Обновляете зависимости (особенно @modelcontextprotocol/sdk)
Меняете переменные окружения или параметры конфигурации
НЕ публикуйте при изменениях в:
Основном веб-приложении Leadloadz (это отдельная кодовая база)
API-маршрутах в приложении Next.js (MCP-сервер проксирует запросы к ним)
Схемах базы данных (обрабатываются основным приложением)
UI-компонентах или маркетинговых страницах
Редактируйте файлы в src/ по мере необходимости. Протестируйте локально:
npm run build
npm testnpm version patch # для исправления ошибок
npm version minor # для новых функций
npm version major # для критических измененийЕсли вы изменили версию, обновите server.json соответствующим образом:
{
"version": "1.0.X",
"packages": [
{
"version": "1.0.X"
}
]
}git add .
git commit -m "Опишите ваши изменения"
git push origin masterecho "//registry.npmjs.org/:_authToken=YOUR_NPM_TOKEN" > .npmrc
npm publish --access public
rm -f .npmrcПримечание: npm-токен начинается с npm_. Храните его в безопасности и никогда не коммитьте.
Реестр Anthropic MCP необходимо обновлять при каждой публикации новой версии npm:
# Вход (токен истекает, поэтому может потребоваться делать это каждый раз)
./mcp-publisher login github
# Следуйте потоку аутентификации устройства:
# 1. Перейдите на https://github.com/login/device
# 2. Введите показанный код
# 3. Авторизуйте приложение
# Публикация
./mcp-publisher publishКритически важно: mcpName в package.json ДОЛЖЕН точно совпадать с name в server.json (с учетом регистра). В настоящее время оба используют io.github.Ali1041/leadloadz.
Платформа | URL | Цель |
npm | Распространение пакета | |
GitHub | Исходный код | |
Anthropic MCP Registry | Официальный каталог Anthropic | |
Glama.ai | Сообщество | |
PulseMCP | Сообщество | |
Smithery.ai | Сообщество | |
MCP.Directory | Сообщество |
Ошибка "Token expired":
Запустите ./mcp-publisher login github снова
Ошибка "You do not have permission":
Убедитесь, что имя в server.json совпадает с вашим именем пользователя GitHub с учетом регистра: io.github.Ali1041/leadloadz
Убедитесь, что mcpName в package.json совпадает в точности
Ошибка "Validation failed":
Описание должно быть ≤ 100 символов
Все обязательные поля в server.json должны присутствовать
npm-пакет уже должен быть опубликован с соответствующей версией
Ваш API-ключ никогда не логируется и не отображается в сообщениях об ошибках
Все ошибки очищаются для предотвращения утечки информации
Сервер взаимодействует напрямую с API Leadloadz через HTTPS
Ограничения скорости (rate limits) принудительно применяются API Leadloadz
Веб-сайт: leadloadz.com
Проблемы: GitHub Issues
Email: 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.
