Retrieve local leads for an X account and filter by status or exact tag; use limit/offset for pagination without starting a browser.
List this account's local leads, optionally filtering by status or exact tag. limit 1-100; offset supports pagination. No browser starts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'No browser starts,' a genuinely useful behavioral trait (fast, no browser session) that is not derivable from the annotations or schema.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose then filters then behavior. Every clause carries information with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. For a filtered-list tool the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination bounds, and a behavioral note, leaving it essentially complete; only cross-sibling routing guidance is thin.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: limit bounds (1-100), offset for pagination, status filtering, and 'exact tag' (clarifying exact-match rather than substring). It omits nothing critical, though account and default values are not addressed.
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 (List) and resource (this account's local leads), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_lead (single fetch) and upsert_lead. The 'local' qualifier hints at scope but is not explained, and no sibling is named explicitly.
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 implies when to use filters ('optionally filtering by status or exact tag'), giving actionable usage context. However it never states when to prefer this over get_lead for a single lead or how it relates to the lead-management siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.