Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Demo CRM MCP Server

Demo CRM MCP Server

by hayathi06
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_lead

Read-only

Retrieve a single CRM lead by numeric ID, including its owner and notes, to support lead lookup, review, and follow-up.

Instructions

Get one lead with its owner and notes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lead_id": "<lead_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_lead"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lead_idYesThe lead's numeric id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the response contents (owner and notes), but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid lead_id or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the key information (single lead, returned owner/notes) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial getter, though it could carry a bit more substance without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient, and it helpfully describes the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid id) and explicit sibling routing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one lead") and adds what is returned (owner and notes). It implies a single-record fetch distinct from search_leads, but never names the sibling or contrasts scope, so differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from "one lead" that this requires a known lead_id and is not a search, but search_leads is never mentioned as the discovery path.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools