HeyLead

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

manage_watchlist

Destructive

Create, list, pause, resume, or remove LinkedIn watchlists that monitor keywords and signals from prospect posts, helping you track buying intent.

Instructions

Add, remove, and list signal keyword watchlists.

Watchlists define keywords that HeyLead monitors on LinkedIn
to detect buying signals from prospect posts. Watchlists are
also auto-created when you generate an ICP.

Args:
    action: What to do: 'list', 'add', 'remove', 'pause', 'resume'.
    name: Watchlist name (for 'add').
    watch_type: 'keyword', 'competitor', 'company', 'person', or 'industry' (for 'add').
    keywords: Comma-separated keywords (for 'add'). E.g., "cold outreach, SDR automation".
    watchlist_id: Watchlist ID (for 'remove', 'pause', 'resume').
    campaign_id: Optional campaign to link the watchlist to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`action`	No	list
`keywords`	No
`watch_type`	No	keyword
`campaign_id`	No
`watchlist_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that watchlists are monitored on LinkedIn and auto-created with ICP generation. However, it does not spell out the consequences of actions like 'remove' or 'pause' beyond their names, but the annotation set lowers the burden.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with a crisp summary, followed by a short context paragraph and a well-organized Args list. Every line provides useful information without filler. It is somewhat long but justified by the tool's six parameters and the need to compensate for empty schema descriptions.

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

Completeness4/5

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

All six parameters and all five actions are covered, including which parameters apply to which action. The context about LinkedIn monitoring and ICP auto-creation is helpful. It does not explicitly state defaults or edge-case behavior, but an output schema exists and the parameter guidance is otherwise comprehensive.

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 Args block carries the full burden. It explains every parameter, maps each to the relevant actions, enumerates valid values for action and watch_type, and gives a concrete keywords example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add, remove, and list signal keyword watchlists.' It clearly defines what watchlists are, what they monitor, and how they relate to ICP generation. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like generate_icp or signals.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is relevant: managing watchlists that monitor LinkedIn buying signals. It also notes that watchlists are auto-created during ICP generation, which helps an agent understand when manual management is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the domain context is strong enough to guide selection.

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