Retrieve a specific lead's details using its ID and client slug, optionally expanding related contacts and companies for complete context.
Busca os detalhes de um lead específico usando o ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do lead | |
| with | No | Relações para incluir (ex: contacts, companies) | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'busca' signals a read operation, but the description does not disclose what happens when the ID does not exist, whether the 'with' parameter changes the response shape, or role/permission requirements. For a simple fetch-by-id these gaps are acceptable but not ideal.
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, efficient sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and no words are wasted; it achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.
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 3-parameter lookup with fully self-documenting schema fields, the description covers the essential purpose adequately. However, it omits any usage context versus get_leads, says nothing about output or not-found behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate. Minor but real gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the id parameter ('usando o ID') and adds no new meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 'Busca os detalhes de um lead específico usando o ID' clearly states a specific verb (busca), resource (detalhes de um lead), and retrieval mechanism (ID). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_leads, which implies list behavior, and from lead mutation tools like create_lead and update_lead.
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 phrase 'usando o ID' implies the tool is for when a specific lead ID is already known, and the contrast with the plural get_leads is reasonably inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring a valid client_slug.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.