Skip to main content
Glama
kanibal-studio

kanibal-tools-mcp

Official
by kanibal-studio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

rank_lead_sources_by_kept_meeting

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank B2B lead sources by cost per kept qualified meeting rather than cost per lead to compare acquisition channels and identify inefficient spend.

Instructions

Rank B2B lead sources on cost per kept qualified meeting instead of cost per lead.

Returns, per source and period, total cost, cost per lead, show rate, cost per kept meeting, cost per qualified kept meeting, and cost per deal and margin minus cost when provided. Invalid rows are reported as a tool error naming each row. Use it to compare acquisition channels; it does not check consent or GDPR. A low cost per meeting does not prove profitability.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csv_textYesCSV content with a header row. Required: source, meetings_qualified_kept and at least one cost column (cost_media, cost_data, cost_tools, cost_human_time, cost_other). Optional: period, leads, meetings_booked, meetings_kept, deals_closed, gross_margin. Numbers use a dot as decimal separator.
min_meetingsNoResults under this many qualified kept meetings are flagged as a small sample, never hidden.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / csv_text / description
      Added value: +"CSV content with a header row. Required: source, meetings_qualified_kept and at least one cost column (cost_media, cost_data, cost_tools, cost_human_time, cost_other). Optional: period, leads, meetings_booked, meetings_kept, deals_closed, gross_margin. Numbers use a dot as decimal separator."
    • addedInput schema / properties / min_meetings / description
      Added value: +"Results under this many qualified kept meetings are flagged as a small sample, never hidden."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: invalid rows produce a tool error naming each row, and the tool does not check consent/GDPR. It also frames the output interpretation caveat that low cost per meeting is not proof of profitability.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core metric, then compactly covers outputs, error handling, intended use, and caveats. Every sentence adds useful selection or interpretation context without padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough context to call and interpret it correctly. It covers intended use, output metrics, invalid-row behavior, and key limitations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the CSV columns, cost fields, optional fields, decimal format, and min_meetings behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond that structured documentation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: rank B2B lead sources by cost per kept qualified meeting rather than cost per lead. It clearly differentiates its cost-per-meeting focus from adjacent consent/GDPR tools by explicitly saying it does not check consent or GDPR.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear intended use: compare acquisition channels. It also sets a boundary by noting that it does not check consent or GDPR and warns that low cost per meeting does not prove profitability, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those compliance checks.

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