Retrieve HOT leads scored 80+ from your pipeline, sorted by highest score then oldest first. Use to prioritize follow-ups; optionally include booked leads and set a result limit.
List HOT leads (score 80+), highest score first, oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| include_booked | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose ordering behavior (highest score first, tie-broken by oldest first), which is genuine added context. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or truncated, and what include_booked actually changes in the result set.
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?
A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the 80+ threshold) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a tool with two completely undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is waste.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage leave the description as the only information source, and it does not say what a lead record contains, whether booked leads are excluded by default, or how many results come back. For a two-parameter filtered-list tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 both parameters rely entirely on the description, and it says nothing about `limit` (default 20, but is it a max? a page size?) or `include_booked` (does including booked leads mean default excludes them?). The description's "score 80+" clarifies filtering but not either parameter's semantics.
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 HOT leads") and defines the filter threshold precisely as "score 80+", which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like daily_pipeline_summary or get_lead, which surface overlapping lead data.
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 word "List" plus the score filter implies a browsing use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over score_lead, daily_pipeline_summary, or get_lead, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.