Dunefox Voice MCP Server

List leads

list_leads

Read-only

Retrieve a workspace's leads, newest first, for review or follow-up. Use limit and offset to page results; requires the leads scope.

Instructions

This workspace's leads, newest first. Needs the "leads" scope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_leads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add two facts not present in structured data: the required "leads" scope and the newest-first ordering. It says nothing about pagination, page size limits, or what happens when the list is empty.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded before the scope requirement. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a paginated list tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description omits default limit, pagination semantics, and response shape. The auth scope note is valuable but the pagination gap is significant for this tool type.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither limit nor offset, nor the maximum of 200. An agent has no way to learn the default page size or how offset interacts with the newest-first ordering from either field.

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 resource (this workspace's leads) and an ordering constraint (newest first), which lets an agent separate it from create_lead, get_lead_for_call and list_calls. It does not explicitly reference any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name and the phrase "this workspace's leads" that this is the enumeration tool rather than a lookup, with no guidance on when to prefer get_lead_for_call.

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