get_leadFetch any lead by ID to access its full record. Use this action when you need a specific lead's details for follow-up or analysis.
Fetch one lead by id.
Requires scope leads:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a valuable behavioral requirement: the `leads:read` scope must be held. This is auth context the annotations do not provide, so it goes beyond the structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the scope requirement follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, this is complete. The schema covers the id parameter, the description covers purpose and required scope, and the annotations cover the safety profile. No additional behavioral detail is necessary to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter, id, with a description and example value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter details, but it does reinforce that the id identifies the single lead to fetch. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('one lead') and a precise selection method ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_leads and aligns exactly with the tool name and title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving a single lead when the id is already known, which implies it should not be used for browsing or filtering. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like list_leads, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.