marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_inquiries_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search inquiries (leads) by contact name, business, email, phone, or address to locate matching CRM records and support read-only lookups.

Instructions

Find inquiries (leads) by the contact's name, business, email, phone or the inquiry address (QuickFind). Needs an Employee ID on the connection, and runs with that employee's MarketSharp permissions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "marketsharp_inquiries_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No	ZIP code.
`city`	No	City.
`state`	No	State, e.g. MI.
`last_name`	No	Last name, or the start of it.
`first_name`	No	First name, or the start of it.
`phone_number`	No	Phone number, digits only is fine.
`business_name`	No	Business name.
`email_address`	No	Email address.
`numberOfRecords`	No	Most records to return (default 25).
`address_line_one`	No	Street address line 1.

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that the call requires an Employee ID on the connection and executes under that employee's MarketSharp permissions, which affects whether results come back complete. It omits result-set behavior such as what happens with zero matches or result caps beyond the schema's numberOfRecords.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is searchable, the second front-loads the connection prerequisite. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description says nothing about the shape of returned inquiries, how multiple criteria combine, or whether an empty result set is an error. The permission and prerequisite note helps, but an agent still has gaps on result interpretation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains prefix matching on first/last name, digits-only phone, and the numberOfRecords default/max. The description echoes a subset of the fields (name, business, email, phone, address) but adds no matching semantics, AND/OR combination rules, or insight into the zip/city/state parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find inquiries (leads)") and enumerates the searchable fields, so the agent knows it's a contact-attribute lookup on inquiries rather than an ID fetch or a full list. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (marketsharp_inquiries_get, marketsharp_inquiries_list) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for lookups when you know a person/business/contact attribute, and flags the Employee ID connection prerequisite. It never says when to prefer marketsharp_inquiries_list or marketsharp_search_global instead, nor whether all provided fields are combined.

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