storedge-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_lead_counts

Retrieve open lead counts grouped by status: lead or reservation. Ideal for checking funnel performance or daily operations summary.

Instructions

Open-lead counts by status (lead vs reservation).

Cheap call - perfect for "how is our funnel looking this week?" or a daily ops summary.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_lead_counts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`facility_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the call is 'cheap', implying low cost, and describes the output format. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which is acceptable for a simple aggregation but still leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a usage scenario. No unnecessary words. However, it could include a brief note on the parameter without sacrificing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and a single optional parameter, the description adequately covers the high-level purpose and use case. However, the lack of parameter documentation leaves a gap in completeness for a simple tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the only parameter (facility_id) at all. An agent would have no guidance on how to use it, whether it filters by facility, or what values are accepted. This is a major omission.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'Open-lead counts by status (lead vs reservation)', specifying both the resource and the aggregation dimension. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_leads (individual leads) and get_lead (single lead).

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?

The description includes a specific use case: 'perfect for "how is our funnel looking this week?" or a daily ops summary'. This gives context on when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives.

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