Volkern MCP Server

volkern_list_notes

Retrieve all notes associated with a specific lead in the Volkern CRM system to track interactions and manage customer relationships.

Instructions

List all notes for a specific lead

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": {
      "leadId": "<leadId>"
    },
    "name": "volkern_list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`leadId`	Yes	ID of the lead

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), behavioral aspects like rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured metadata, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'leadId' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is used to filter notes by lead, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), specifying it's for a 'specific lead'. It distinguishes from general note-listing tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'volkern_list_interactions' or 'volkern_list_tasks' which might also relate to leads.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used instead of 'volkern_get_lead' for note retrieval or clarify its role among other list tools like 'volkern_list_interactions'.

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

Deploy Server