Hunter MCP

list_leads

Read-only

Filter and retrieve Hunter leads by list, company, status, verification, activity, location, tags, and more. Get targeted lead data for outreach or analysis.

Instructions

List Hunter leads with current list, identity, company, status, verification, activity/date, location, tag, campaign, user, confidence, custom-attribute, query, and offset filters.

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	Description
`email`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`offset`	No
`source`	No
`company`	No
`tag_ids`	No
`twitter`	No
`website`	No
`industry`	No
`location`	No
`user_ids`	No
`last_name`	No
`positions`	No
`first_name`	No
`departments`	No
`sync_status`	No
`campaign_ids`	No
`company_size`	No
`country_code`	No
`linkedin_url`	No
`phone_number`	No
`created_range`	No
`leads_list_id`	No
`updated_range`	No
`confidence_score`	No
`last_activity_at`	No	Hunter period preset, *, ~, or supported date value.
`last_exported_at`	No	Hunter period preset, *, ~, or supported date value.
`sending_statuses`	No
`custom_attributes`	No
`last_contacted_at`	No	Hunter period preset, *, ~, or supported date value.
`campaign_membership`	No
`last_activity_range`	No
`last_exported_range`	No
`last_contacted_range`	No
`verification_statuses`	No
`verification_date_range`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate that this is a safe, non-exhaustive read operation. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond naming the filter categories, so it neither enriches nor contradicts the annotation-provided behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The long enumeration of filter categories is somewhat unwieldy, but it is compact and avoids repetition.

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 the tool's complexity—37 parameters, nested location and date objects, and no output schema—the description is too thin. It does not mention pagination defaults, result shape, how filters combine, or important parameters like limit; an agent is left guessing on several operational details.

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?

With only 8% schema description coverage and 37 parameters, the description must compensate heavily. It provides a high-level grouping of filter types (identity, company, status, verification, etc.) but does not explain individual parameter meanings, accepted value formats, or the relationship between categories and specific parameter names, leaving the agent to infer mappings.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (List) and resource (Hunter leads), and enumerates the filter dimensions, so an agent can tell this is a lead-list retrieval tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and operation are distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving leads with various filters, which gives basic usage context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like domain_search or email_finder, and it offers no exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server