Skip to main content
Glama
Bingeljell

@bingeljell/lead-gen-mcp

by Bingeljell
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Tools have distinct purposes: discovery, extraction, and full pipeline. The generate tool subsumes the other two but is a convenience layer, not a source of confusion. Minor overlap exists but descriptions clearly differentiate them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent lead_verb pattern (discover, extract, generate). The naming is predictable and aligns with tool function.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the lower end but appropriate for a focused lead generation server. Each tool earns its place, covering search, extraction, and pipeline integration.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core lead generation workflow—search, extract, and output. Missing features like batch extraction or lead management are minor gaps for this scope.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It outlines steps but lacks details on side effects (e.g., CSV file overwriting, error handling, rate limits) and does not clarify the save-to-CSV behavior or what happens on empty results.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the cost of essential detail for a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions. It front-loads 'Full pipeline' but is insufficiently informative.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide essential context about parameter meaning, output format, or operational details, making it incomplete.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any of the six parameters (query, vertical, country, filters, profile, maxLeads), leaving agents without necessary context.

    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 it is a full pipeline that performs search, rank, extract, filter, and save to CSV, returning discovered leads with emails. This distinguishes it from siblings lead_discover and lead_extract by being the complete process.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It highlights 'no browser required' and 'scored URLs', but lacks details on ranking methodology, side effects, or authentication needs. Transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is concise (two sentences) but omits important parameter information. While succinct, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

    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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how ICP fit ranking works, how options like country/profile affect results, or what the response format is. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema coverage is low (20% — only vertical has a description). The description does not explain parameters like query, country, profile, or maxResults. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

    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's purpose: 'Search for company candidates matching a query and rank them by ICP fit.' It specifies the action (search), resource (company candidates), and key differentiators (ranking, scored URLs, no browser required). This distinguishes it from siblings like lead_extract and lead_generate.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies use for discovering leads before extraction ('Returns scored URLs ready for extraction') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The 'no browser required' hint is useful but insufficient for clear guidance.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using a headless browser and optional LLM parsing, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or error handling, so transparency is moderate.

    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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with key information and every word adds value.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main purpose and inputs. However, it lacks information about output format, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., URL must be accessible). No output schema exists, so some return details would be helpful.

    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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers 'url' by stating 'from a single URL' and hints at 'deep' by mentioning 'optional LLM parsing'. However, it does not explicitly link parameters or explain the boolean semantics of 'deep' (e.g., what happens when true vs false).

    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 verb 'deep-extract' and the resource 'company info from a single URL', listing specific fields (name, emails, industry, size). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lead_discover and lead_generate by focusing on a single URL extraction.

    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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a specific URL to extract company info. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the description implies it is the correct tool for URL-based extraction.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

lead-gen-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

lead-gen-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Bingeljell/lead-gen-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server