Find Freshsales CRM leads, contacts, accounts, and deals by name, email, or keyword, and restrict results to selected record types.
Unified search across leads, contacts, accounts and deals by name/email/keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term | |
| include | No | Restrict to these record types (default: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or capped, whether pagination exists, what permissions are required, or how results from different record types are merged. Only the searchable field set is disclosed.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the scope (across which entities) is front-loaded before the match fields. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-value story — and it doesn't. For a unified multi-entity search, an agent needs to know whether it returns mixed-type records, how they are grouped or ranked, and any result limits. Only the input side is addressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description does add one piece of value beyond the schema's bare 'Search term' by naming the matchable fields (name/email/keyword), but says nothing further about the 'include' filter or query syntax.
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 (search) and enumerates the resources covered (leads, contacts, accounts, deals) plus the matchable fields (name/email/keyword). The word 'unified' hints at the cross-entity scope, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_leads/search_contacts/search_accounts/search_deals tools, so the differentiation is only implied.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. With four entity-specific search siblings present, the central decision an agent faces is 'unified search vs. targeted search,' and the description is silent on it. It also omits any prerequisite or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.