Smartlead Simplified MCP Server

smartlead_update_lead_status

Update the status of a lead by providing its ID and the new status value.

Instructions

Update a lead's status.

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "smartlead_update_lead_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	New status for the lead
`lead_id`	Yes	ID of the lead to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens after the update. Significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is too minimal. It does not waste words, but the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Front-loading is adequate.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context, such as return value, error conditions, or relation to other tools. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information for a safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify allowed values for 'status', format constraints, or relations between parameters. Baseline is 3, but no extra value provided.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a lead's status', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'smartlead_update_lead', which likely updates other fields, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smartlead_update_lead' or for what specific contexts (e.g., only status changes). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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