storedge-mcp

by sanjibani

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_leads

List and filter leads for a storage facility by view type, including current, reservations, inquiries, and more.

Instructions

List leads for a facility.

Args: view: One of current, reservations, inquiries, follow_up, waitlist, missed_move_ins. current = all open leads; reservations = committed but not yet moved in; inquiries = open questions / not yet committed; waitlist = queued for sold-out sizes; missed_move_ins = never showed up.

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": "list_leads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`view`	No	current
`per_page`	No
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('List leads') and enumerates view types, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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 relatively concise with a front-loaded purpose sentence and a structured arg list. Every line adds value, though the view enum explanation could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description omits pagination parameter behavior and does not reference the output schema. The definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing.

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% per context signals; only one of four parameters (view) is described with value explanations. page, per_page, and facility_id are left undocumented, providing incomplete guidance for the agent.

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 starts with 'List leads for a facility,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It also explains various lead status views (e.g., current, reservations), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_lead or get_lead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states what it does but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like get_lead (single lead) or list_tenants. No when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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