Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili

capture_lead

Structured intake of a prospect into an SMB's funnel with validation and deduplication on (smb_id, phone or email). Stores the prospect in the SMB's AgentBroker lead funnel — this is AgentBroker's own lead store, NOT a write into the business's own CRM.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Tell smb_xyz I'm interested and want a callback" -> call capture_lead({"smb_id": "smb_xyz", "prospect": {"name": "Jane", "phone": "+15551234567", "email": "jane@example.com"}, "source": "agent"})

WHEN TO USE: Use when a potential customer has expressed interest in an SMB's service and you want to ensure they are registered in the SMB's pipeline for follow-up. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for confirmed bookings — use schedule_appointment. Do not use for bulk list imports. COST: $0.05 per_call LATENCY: ~600ms EXECUTION: sync_fast (use get_outcome to retrieve result)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
smb_idYes
sourceNoWhere the consumer-initiated request originated (e.g., 'consumer_request', 'inbound_quote_form', 'agent_referral_from_find_business').
prospectYes
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional client-supplied key for safe retries. Replaying the same key within 24h returns the original receipt - the operation is NOT re-executed and NOT re-charged.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / prospect / properties / consent_record_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of consent record if marketing opt-in obtained"New value: +"Optional ID of a consent record proving the prospect asked to be contacted (e.g., they filled an SMB's intake form or requested a quote). Required when downstream send_message calls are anticipated."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"Channel or campaign that sourced this lead"New value: +"Where the consumer-initiated request originated (e.g., 'consumer_request', 'inbound_quote_form', 'agent_referral_from_find_business')."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the skeletal annotations, the description discloses storage semantics (AgentBroker lead store, not CRM), dedup/validation behavior, cost ($0.05), latency (~600ms), and async-style result retrieval via get_outcome. No contradiction with annotations; the write behavior matches readOnlyHint=false.

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 well-structured with purposeful sections: core purpose, example, when to use/not use, then cost/latency/execution. Each section earns its place, though the example JSON adds length; overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by referencing get_outcome for results and giving cost, latency, and execution mode. It covers the critical distinction from the SMB's own CRM and the primary routing rules; the only minor gap is a precise description of the response receipt, which is delegated to get_outcome.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The example call maps a natural-language request to concrete values for smb_id, prospect, and source, and the dedup note clarifies the role of smb_id/phone/email. Schema descriptions cover source and idempotency_key, so the description adds value without needing to repeat them; some prospect subfields remain undocumented but are self-explanatory.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'intake'/'stores' with resource 'prospect into SMB's funnel,' and adds key differentiators: validation, deduplication on (smb_id, phone/email), and explicit note that it writes to AgentBroker's own lead store, not the business's CRM. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_appointment.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections state the triggering condition (prospect expressed interest) and exclusions (confirmed bookings -> schedule_appointment; bulk imports). Also notes follow-up retrieval via get_outcome, which guides the call flow.

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

All Agent Broker toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated targets (e.g., check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome), and the descriptions are unusually thorough. However, send_message and send_transactional_confirmation overlap because send_message already includes a 'transactional' message type, and verify_business vs verify_company_record are easy to confuse despite different scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 23 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, get_*, send_*, verify_*), with no camelCase or stylistic drift. The verb uniformly precedes the object, making the surface predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, spanning SMB communications, booking, compliance screening, trade lookup, and platform utilities. Each tool has a purpose, but the count pushes the set into the 16-25 borderline range and suggests scope creep.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows for booking, messaging, and compliance pre-flight are well covered, including async polling and cost preview. However, there are lifecycle gaps: capture_lead has no way to list/update/retrieve leads, and business records support import/verify but no update/delete. The trade/company-verification tools also feel disconnected from the main SMB flow.

Resources