get_leadFetch a single lead by ID, including activity history, to review contact details and interactions.
Fetch a single lead by id (includes activity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that the response 'includes activity', which is non-obvious since there is no output schema, but it omits any error/not-found behavior or payload detail.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the operation, the key, and that activity data is included. It does not describe the returned lead fields, error cases, or authorization requirements, leaving some gaps.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The phrase 'by id' tells the agent the argument is a lead identifier, which is minimal but meaningful added context; it does not clarify format, source, or whether it accepts external IDs.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single lead') scoped by id, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_leads. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 word 'single' plus 'by id' implies the tool is for retrieving one known lead rather than enumerating them, so usage is inferable. No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g., list_leads for browsing) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.