List leads for routing review with a one-line summary each, up to a limit of 100, so you can inspect available leads before assignment decisions.
List up to limit leads (max 100) with a one-line summary each. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context with the max 100 cap and one-line summary output shape, but it omits ordering, pagination, and what leads are included. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the key list operation and cap. 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with the annotations, but the rest is efficient.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, and the annotations cover safety behavior. However, with five sibling tools in the routing workflow, the description does not explain when this list operation is the right choice versus get_lead_context or preview_route.
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 for the single limit parameter. It states the max of 100, which is useful, but it does not mention the default value of 20 or what happens when limit is omitted, leaving partial coverage.
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 and resource: list leads, with a one-line summary each. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from routing siblings like get_lead_context or preview_route.
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?
The only usage-like statement is 'Read-only,' which restates the annotation rather than explaining when to use this tool. It gives no guidance on choosing between this and get_lead_context, preview_route, or the other routing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.