marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_inquiry_statuses_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all inquiry (lead) statuses from MarketSharp, with an option to include inactive statuses, to understand lead workflow stages.

Instructions

List the company's inquiry (lead) statuses.

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_inquiry_statuses_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`includeInactive`	No	Include statuses that are turned off.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without help. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether inactive statuses are excluded by default, how statuses are ordered, or whether the list is paginated. Because annotations carry the burden, this is a modest gap rather than a severe one.

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 short sentence with zero padding, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is terse almost to a fault, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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?

This is a low-complexity reference-list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, so the minimal description is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no signal about what a status record contains (ID, name, active flag) or whether inactive statuses are returned by default.

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?

The single parameter includeInactive is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including that it includes statuses that are turned off. The description never references it, but with complete schema coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource ("List ... inquiry (lead) statuses") plus a scope ("the company's"), and the parenthetical disambiguates inquiry vs. lead terminology. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as inquiry_notes_list or lead_sources_list by the resource noun, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a status ID to filter inquiries. The only hint is the word "Company", which implies a tenant-scoped reference lookup, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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