Retrieve leads newest first with pagination and filters for stage, source, or search terms so you can find and review prospect records.
List leads (newest first).
Paginated: pass cursor = next_cursor from the previous result to get more.
Requires scope leads:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size | |
| stage | No | ||
| cursor | No | `next_cursor` from the previous page | |
| search | No | Name, email, company or phone digits | |
| source | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on what they don't cover: the newest-first ordering, the exact pagination contract for cursor/next_cursor, and the required `leads:read` scope. That is meaningful added context for an agent planning calls, though rate limits or total-count behavior are unmentioned.
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?
Three short lines, each earning its place: identity and ordering first, then pagination mechanics, then the auth requirement. Fully front-loaded with zero filler.
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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum hint at what a lead record contains or what `stage` and `source` accept. Pagination and auth are well covered, but the filter parameters and the return shape remain unexplained.
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 coverage is 60%; the description explains `cursor` but that is already documented in the schema description, so it adds little. The undocumented `stage` and `source` filter parameters are covered by neither schema nor description, though `limit` and `search` are explained in the schema.
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') plus the ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is useful scoping information an agent can't get from the name alone. Siblings such as get_lead, update_lead and upsert_lead are clearly different operations, so no explicit differentiation is needed.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' – the description never states when to reach for this versus get_lead or upsert_lead, nor any preconditions beyond the scope. Adequate for an obvious list operation but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.