marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_inquiries_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a MarketSharp inquiry (lead) by ID to view date, status, lead sources, product interests, address, and notes, and optionally include inquiries without appointments.

Instructions

Get one inquiry (lead) by ID: date, status, lead sources, product interests, address and notes.

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": {
      "inquiryId": "<inquiryId>"
    },
    "name": "marketsharp_inquiries_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inquiryId`	Yes	MarketSharp inquiry ID.
`appointmentRequired`	No	Only inquiries that have an appointment. MarketSharp defaults to true, so pass false to include inquiries with no appointment yet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for enumerating the returned fields (date, status, lead sources, product interests, address, notes), which substitutes for the absent output schema. It does not disclose what happens on an invalid or unknown ID, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('by ID') appears immediately. The trailing field enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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 a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition supplies the one thing structured data lacks: a summary of the record shape. Error behavior is the only meaningful omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains inquiryId and the non-obvious appointmentRequired default of true. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Get one inquiry (lead) by ID') and enumerates the payload fields returned. The singular 'one ... by ID' framing cleanly separates it from the list/search siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Retrieving a single record by ID implies the use case, and an agent can infer that list/search siblings cover the other cases. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no named alternative.

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