landing.get_leadsRetrieve private lead submissions captured by a selected landing page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| landing_project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (_private lead submissions_ and _selected landing page_) but does not disclose behavior like pagination limits or access requirements. This is consistent with the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose immediately and does not repeat information already present in the schema or annotations.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the meaning or necessity of project_id, nor does it provide guidance on pagination behavior or how this tool relates to landing.get_analytics or crm.get_lead. These are gaps an agent might face when choosing or calling the tool.
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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implies the meaning of landing_project_id via 'selected landing page' and leaves project_id unexplained. limit and offset are self-evident by name, but the key project_id parameter lacks semantic clarification.
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?
The description uses a specific verb (_Retrieve_) and identifies a distinct resource (_private lead submissions captured by a selected landing page_). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like landing.get_analytics or landing.get_project.
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 phrase 'captured by a selected landing page' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants leads belonging to a landing page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.