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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support (referencing limit/offset parameters), but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data structure is returned, default sorting behavior, or whether text queries support wildcards/fuzzy matching.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences totaling 12 words. Information is front-loaded with the core action ('Search and filter leads') followed by filterable attributes and pagination capability. No redundant or wasted language is present.

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 8 parameters with rich enum values and no output schema, the description covers the basic filtering capabilities but leaves significant gaps. It omits return value structure, authentication requirements, rate limiting, and the business logic of lead statuses (e.g., the difference between 'enriched' and 'scored').

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 significantly. The text successfully maps conceptual filters to parameters (e.g., 'score range' implies min_score/max_score usage, 'pagination' implies limit/offset). However, it lacks critical semantics: it doesn't clarify that all parameters are optional (0 required), explain the score scale/range, or describe whether tag filtering uses AND/OR logic.

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 searches and filters leads, specifying the available filter dimensions (text query, status, score range, source, tags). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like lead_ingest (creation) and lead_export (export), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from lead_batch_ingest or pipeline_stats.

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 like lead_export (which may also access lead data) or pipeline_stats. It omits prerequisites, permission requirements, or scenarios where this search is preferred over other access methods.

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