LeadAce

record_response

Record email or SNS replies to outreach, update prospect status, enforce do-not-contact rules, and derive new decision-maker prospects from rejection feedback.

Instructions

Record a response (email reply, SNS DM, etc.) to an outreach; updates prospect status and marks do-not-contact. do_not_contact is forced on responseType=bounce, on rejectionFeedback opt-out reasons, and when the per-project rejection cycle cap (maxReapproachCycles) is reached — the cap also drops the recontact window so a would-be deferred becomes rejected. rejectionFeedback with wrong_timing/budget plus a recontact window sets status=deferred (next_outreach_after); a decision_maker_pointer auto-creates or updates a prospect, reported back as derived prospects.

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": {
      "outreachLogId": "<outreachLogId>",
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "sentiment": "<sentiment>",
      "responseType": "<responseType>"
    },
    "name": "record_response"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`channel`	Yes
`content`	Yes	Response content
`sentiment`	Yes
`receivedAt`	No
`responseType`	Yes
`outreachLogId`	Yes	ID of the outreach log this response is for
`markDoNotContact`	No	Manual do_not_contact flag; bounces and rejectionFeedback opt-outs force it regardless.
`rejectionFeedback`	No	Only valid when responseType="rejection".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.54Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility and excels by disclosing forced do_not_contact triggers (bounce, opt-out reasons, cap reached), cap-related recontact window behavior, and auto-creation of prospects via `decision_maker_pointer`. All significant side effects are transparently spelled out.

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?

Every sentence packs meaningful business logic, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is a dense single paragraph that could benefit from bullet points or breaks to improve scannability and comprehension.

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?

The description covers the non-obvious conditional behaviors (bounce, cap, deferral, derived prospects) integral to using the tool correctly. Given no output schema, it stops short of describing return values or error handling, which is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains the meaning of `responseType` values (e.g., bounce forces DNC), the `rejectionFeedback` nuances (e.g., wrong_timing/budget leads to deferred status), and the role of `markDoNotContact` relative to forced behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Record a response (email reply, SNS DM, etc.) to an outreach' which identifies the action and resource, and it accurately distinguishes from related tools like `record_outreach` and `record_outreach_with_inquiry`. It also outlines primary side effects ('updates prospect status and marks do-not-contact'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use the tool and detailed conditional logic (e.g., 'rejectionFeedback with wrong_timing/budget plus a recontact window sets status=deferred'). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for outbound outreach, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

Deploy Server