get_sourcesList the primary lead sources and networks to identify where mortgage leads originate.
[Premium] List main lead sources (networks).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_sources"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a '[Premium]' qualifier that hints at access restrictions and the word 'main' to limit scope, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or output format.
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?
The description is a single short sentence: '[Premium] List main lead sources (networks).' It is front-loaded with the action, uses minimal words, and contains no filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks a description of the return structure and does not clarify what qualifies as a 'main' lead source or reference related sibling tools for broader context.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. No additional explanation is needed, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 starts with a clear verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'main lead sources (networks)', which is specific and distinguishes it from tools targeting other resources (e.g., get_banks, get_cities). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_source/update_source, but the purpose is clear.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements add_source/update_source or how it differs from other list-type tools. No exclusions or preferred contexts are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.