Modify a lead's editable details in Instantly.ai, including name, company, job title, phone, website, and custom variables. Provide the lead ID and field updates to apply changes.
Update editable fields on a lead (first_name, last_name, company_name, job_title, phone, website, personalization, custom_variables, ...). LOW_WRITE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| lead_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation 'LOW_WRITE,' which hints at low impact, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full overwrites, whether confirm is ever required, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The field list is dense and useful, and 'LOW_WRITE' is a compact behavioral tag. It is concise, though the trailing '...' and bare LOW_WRITE tag are slightly informal.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque fields object, this description is not complete. It does not specify confirm semantics, which fields are truly editable, whether values are replaced or merged, or any prerequisites. An agent would likely need to infer important call details.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully lists example property names inside the fields object, which adds meaning to that opaque nested parameter. However, it does not explain the confirm parameter or the behavior of the fields object beyond examples, so compensation is only partial.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update'), the resource ('a lead'), and enumerates the editable fields. It is specific enough to distinguish from add/delete/move lead operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with set_lead_interest_status, so it falls just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like set_lead_interest_status or move_lead. The only usage cue is implicit in 'Update editable fields,' which restates the purpose rather than providing context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.