Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lead Gen Playbook MCP

Lead Gen Playbook MCP

by ahsanmassgazal-cmd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Recommend agents for a goal

recommend_agents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Describe a sales goal to receive a short, ordered list of agents and matching workflows for lead-generation tasks.

Instructions

Describe what you want to achieve; get a short, ordered list of agents and matching workflows.

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": {
      "goal": "<goal>"
    },
    "name": "recommend_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYese.g. 'I want to start cold email outreach to distributors'
limitNoMax agents (default 8)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful output context ('short, ordered list' with 'matching workflows'), but does not explain ranking criteria, result freshness, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence with the core action and outcome front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter read-only recommendation tool, the description, annotations, and schema together cover the essentials. The main remaining gaps are explicit sibling routing and details about ranking or the limit parameter, but these are modest given the structured metadata.

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%, and both the goal and limit parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the goal parameter's intent but adds no syntax, examples, or limit semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action: give a goal and receive an ordered list of agents plus matching workflows. It clearly identifies the resource and goal-driven recommendation behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like search_agents or list_agents.

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?

It gives implied usage guidance by telling the agent to describe what it wants to achieve. However, it does not say when to use this instead of search_agents, list_agents, or get_workflow, nor does it provide exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools