Checks an existing lead against every other lead and explains likely duplicates, so you can spot and resolve duplicate CRM records.
Check an existing lead against every other lead and explain any likely duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes | The lead's numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the scan is against 'every other lead' (full-corpus scope, implying cost) and the return is an explanation of likely duplicates rather than a bare list.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and stays free of filler. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and closed-world scope, the description conveys scope (all other leads) and the nature of the output (explanations). No output schema exists, but the description adequately characterizes the response shape; only detailed return structure is left unspecified.
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% and the single lead_id parameter is documented as 'The lead's numeric id'. The description adds no format, range, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (check) and resource (an existing lead vs every other lead) with the outcome being duplicate detection plus explanation. No sibling (get_lead, search_leads, pipeline_summary, etc.) performs duplicate detection, so the purpose is unambiguous even without an explicit sibling callout.
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?
Usage is implied by the description — call it to check one lead for duplicates — and the phrase 'existing lead' hints that the lead must already exist. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, so guidance stays at the implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.