leads-mcp

lead-report

Generate a comprehensive lead report by combining email, person profile, and company data from multiple APIs.

Instructions

Generate a comprehensive lead report combining email, person profile, and company data from all available APIs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "firstName": "<firstName>",
      "lastName": "<lastName>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "lead-report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Company domain (e.g., 'stripe.com')
`lastName`	Yes	Last name of the person
`firstName`	Yes	First name of the person

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions combining data from all available APIs, hinting at multiple underlying calls, but fails to address read-only status, potential data absence, rate limits, or error behavior. The vagueness of 'all available APIs' adds uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It contains no redundant information and earns its place in terms of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a composite report tool and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the report contains beyond data types, how results are returned, or how it handles missing data from any API, which leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (firstName, lastName, domain) already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive lead report combining email, person profile, and company data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find-email or enrich-person, which handle individual data types. The verb 'generate' and resource 'lead report' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for aggregated reporting rather than individual lookups, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server