stormgtm-mcp

Check many leads

check_batch

Queue up to 10,000 leads for asynchronous review, returning a batch ID to poll batch_status; greylisted servers retry automatically.

Instructions

Queue up to 10,000 leads for asynchronous review. Returns a batch id; poll batch_status. Greylisted servers are retried automatically.

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": {
      "leads": "<leads>"
    },
    "name": "check_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tier`	No
`leads`	Yes
`policy`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses genuinely useful behavior (asynchronous execution, batch id return, automatic retry of greylisted servers). However it omits cost/credit implications, auth requirements, and what 'greylisted' entails, so it only partially covers the behavioral surface.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scale, followed by the return/next-step and retry semantics. Zero filler.

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 tool with nested object params, an enum parameter, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It never explains tier semantics or the policy options, leaving the agent unable to reason about the majority of the input contract.

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% across three parameters including deeply nested lead objects. The description adds only the '10,000 leads' cap; it says nothing about tier (fast/deep), the policy block-* options, or the context fields expected per lead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue ... leads') with a concrete scale cap and execution mode ('asynchronous review'). It clearly differentiates from check_lead (single) and batch_status (polling) by describing the queue-then-poll flow.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'poll batch_status' after obtaining the batch id, which is real workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_lead or the tier selection trade-offs, leaving some inference.

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