Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hunter MCP Server

Hunter MCP Server

Official
by hunter-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_lead

Add new leads to your Hunter account by providing email addresses for business contact management.

Instructions

Create a lead in user's account.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "create_lead"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:39-42 (handler)
    The handler function that executes the create_lead tool logic by posting the provided email to the Hunter API leads endpoint via HunterAPIClient.
    async def create_lead(email: str) -> str:
    async with HunterAPIClient() as client:
        response = await client.post("leads", {"email": email})
        return response
  • main.py:38-38 (registration)
    Registers the create_lead tool with the FastMCP server using the @mcp.tool decorator.
    @mcp.tool(description="Create a lead in user's account.")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states 'Create a lead', implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate emails). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, and it avoids redundancy. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, which slightly detracts from its effectiveness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter (undocumented in schema), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what the 'email' parameter represents (e.g., the lead's email address), its format, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('Create') and resource ('a lead in user's account'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a lead or how it differs from sibling tools like 'enrich_email' or 'enrich_company', making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when a lead should be created), or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'email_finder' or 'enrich_email' that might be related. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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