HeyLead

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect

Read-only

View a read-only digest of agent decisions: holds, replans, closer choices, skipped replies, and gated jobs. Identify why campaigns stall or replies are skipped without changing outreach state.

Instructions

Read-only digest of what the in-process agents decided — never writes.

Surfaces operator holds, today's strategist replans, hot-lead closer
decisions, recent reply skips, and gated scheduler jobs from the local
log. Use it when someone asks what the agents did, who is held, why a
reply was skipped, or why a campaign is not sending.
It does not send, book, replan, or change outreach state.

Args:
    action: What to show:
        "agents"  — one-screen digest of holds, replans, closer, skips, jobs (default)
        "holds"   — fresh hold_for_operator rows and coordinator campaign holds
        "replans" — today's strategist_replan_decision rows
        "closer"  — today's hot_lead_closer_decision rows
        "skips"   — recent reply skips (hard gates, cap, dedup, agent skip)
        "jobs"    — pending scheduler jobs and recent gated-job refusals
        "commons" — digest, beats (including product), live notes, coordinator hold, stale liveness
        "journal" — hosted agent diary (cloud workers). Self-hosted: use the other actions.
    campaign_id: Optional campaign filter (full id or prefix).
    outreach_id: Optional outreach filter (full id or prefix).
    limit: Max rows per slice, 1-100 (default 20).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`action`	No	agents
`campaign_id`	No
`outreach_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.375Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description strongly reinforces this with 'never writes' and 'does not send, book, replan, or change outreach state.' It adds material behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source is the local log, and the 'journal' action has a self-hosted vs. cloud distinction. No contradiction exists.

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 long but tightly organized: a front-loaded summary, explicit exclusions, then a structured Args block. Every action entry earns its place because it maps directly to a use case. No fluff or repetition is present.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's eight distinct display modes and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers each action's contents, filter semantics, limits, defaults, and even the self-hosted caveat. There is no missing operational context an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains every parameter: 'action' with all eight enumerated values and meanings, 'campaign_id' and 'outreach_id' as optional filters, and 'limit' with range and default. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read-only digest of what the in-process agents decided.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'never writes' and enumerating the exact decision types it surfaces (holds, replans, closer decisions, skips, jobs). An agent can tell this apart from tools like show_status or analytics without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when someone asks what the agents did, who is held, why a reply was skipped, or why a campaign is not sending.' It also gives clear exclusions: 'It does not send, book, replan, or change outreach state,' which prevents misuse. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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