HeyLead

by D4umak

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

update_contact

Destructive

Update a contact by adding a tag, noting details, moving its lifecycle stage, or linking it to a campaign.

Instructions

Change one contact: tag it, note it, move its stage, or link it to a campaign.

Reading and searching contacts is the contacts tool.

Args:
    action: "tag", "note", "stage", "link" or "enrich".
    contact_id: Which contact.
    lifecycle_stage: The stage to move it to.
    tag: The tag to add.
    note: The note to record.
    campaign_id: Which campaign (link).
    match: How to match when linking.
    dry_run: Show what would change without changing it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tag`	No
`note`	No
`match`	No	name
`action`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`contact_id`	No
`campaign_id`	No
`lifecycle_stage`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.389Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, and the description adds the safety-relevant dry_run behavior: 'Show what would change without changing it.' It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the purpose, then the routing instruction, then a terse Args block. No redundant preamble or repetition of the schema's default values.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers the core decisions: which action, which contact, and dry_run semantics. It falls slightly short on explaining the 'enrich' action and the behavior of 'match', leaving some agent uncertainty for those less common cases.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args list is essential; it explains all 8 parameters and enumerates the allowed action values, which the schema leaves as a bare string. The main weakness is that 'match' is only glossed as 'How to match when linking' and 'enrich' is not explained, but the description still compensates for the schema's 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 opens with a specific verb and object—'Change one contact'—and enumerates the five supported mutations (tag, note, stage, link, enrich). It also explicitly contrasts itself with the read/search workflow by naming the contacts sibling tool, so an agent can distinguish it 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear when-not instruction: reading and searching contacts is the contacts tool, not update_contact. It does not spell out additional exclusion conditions relative to other mutation siblings such as edit_campaign, but the routing context is sufficient for the common case.

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