replyatlas-mcp

Tag a lead

tag_lead

Attach an existing tag to a lead by passing a valid tagId from list_tags; creates no new tags.

Instructions

Attach an existing tag to a lead. tagId must be an id from list_tags (this does not create tags).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "tagId": "<tagId>"
    },
    "name": "tag_lead"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`tagId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description bears most of the burden. It usefully clarifies that this is a pure attachment that never creates a tag, but says nothing about duplicate-tag behavior, idempotency, failure modes, or required permissions for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, constraint second. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-required-param mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose and the tagId source but omits what `id` denotes and how failures or duplicates are handled — gaps an agent would want before invoking a write.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains `tagId`'s provenance well (must be an existing id from list_tags). However, the `id` parameter — the target lead — is only implied by 'to a lead' and never named or constrained.

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?

States a specific verb (attach) and resource (tag→lead), and explicitly excludes the adjacent operation of creating tags. An agent can distinguish this from any create/list sibling without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear precondition — `tagId` must come from list_tags — which routes the agent to the right prerequisite tool. It doesn't discuss when-not to use it (e.g. what to do for a tag that doesn't yet exist), but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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