LeadAce

list_message_variants

Retrieve a project's message-angle variants, including active and archived counts, then get each variant's details (ID, subject pattern, body approach, label) as JSON sorted by creation date.

Instructions

List the project's message-angle variants. Reports the active / archived counts, then the variants as JSON — [{ variantId, subjectPattern, bodyApproach, label, archivedAt, … }] ordered by createdAt asc.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "list_message_variants"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Project name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.54Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: it reports active/archived counts, then returns variants as a JSON array with specific fields and ordering by createdAt asc. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a simple read-only list the disclosed behavior is clear.

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, front-loaded sentence: it states the purpose first and then gives compact output details. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description sufficiently compensates by specifying the output shape, fields, counts, and ordering. Any missing detail like empty-result behavior is minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, projectId, with the description 'Project name or ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating project scope, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('the project's message-angle variants'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling operations like upsert_message_variant and pick_message_variant by focusing on enumeration. The scope is explicit: project-level variants.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for listing message-angle variants for a project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of pick_message_variant or upsert_message_variant, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond a projectId.

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

Deploy Server