leadpipe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual read/write nature and hints at mutable state ('update'), but lacks critical safety context: whether updates are atomic, if they trigger lead re-scoring, permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible. The phrase 'Pass fields to update' implies partial updates are supported but doesn't confirm the merge behavior.

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?

Three sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('View or update'), followed immediately by the distinct usage patterns. Every word serves a specific instructional or definitional purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters including nested custom rule objects) and complete lack of schema descriptions or output schema, the description provides minimum viable guidance for basic usage. However, it omits the return value structure when viewing, validation rules (e.g., whether weights must sum to 1.0), and the behavioral impact of configuration changes on existing leads.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It maps parameters to functional groups ('weights, titles, industries, or custom rules'), which helps interpret the 10 parameters, but fails to explain critical schema constraints like the 0-1 range for weights, the enum values for company sizes (1-10, 11-50, etc.), or the complex nested structure of custom_rules with operators (regex, gt, lt) and point ranges (-50 to 50).

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 clearly states the tool manages 'lead scoring configuration' with dual capabilities to 'view or update'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like lead_score (which scores individual leads) and lead_ingest (which adds leads) by specifying this is for configuration management.

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?

Provides explicit instructions for the two operational modes: 'Pass empty object to view current config' versus 'Pass fields to update'. While it clearly explains how to use the tool, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or warn about concurrent modification risks.

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