Fetch one lead with evidence by scanning campaign leads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool fetches a lead with evidence, but does not explain what happens if the lead is not found, whether it requires specific authentication, or if any side effects occur. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation but not explicitly.
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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the brevity contributes to the under-specification seen in other dimensions.
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?
With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is under-specified. An output schema exists but is not exposed here. The description omits critical details such as return format, error handling, and authentication requirements, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in many contexts.
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%, and the description does not compensate for this. It does not explain the purpose of any parameter, including access_token and tenant_api_key. The names campaign_id and lead_id are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond them.
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 ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('one lead'), with additional context ('with evidence by scanning campaign leads') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign. However, 'evidence' is ambiguous and the exact mechanism is unclear.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The context is only implied by the tool name and the brief phrase about scanning campaign leads.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: cost estimation, bulk lead export, campaign status, single lead retrieval, vertical listing, campaign creation, and feedback submission. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even get_campaign and get_lead are clearly separated by campaign vs. lead granularity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (estimate_cost, export_leads, get_campaign, get_lead, list_verticals, run_campaign, submit_feedback). This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
The server has 7 tools, which is well within the ideal 3–15 range. Each tool serves a clear function in the campaign lifecycle without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The server covers campaign creation (run_campaign), reading campaign status (get_campaign), lead access (get_lead, export_leads), cost estimation, and feedback. However, it lacks list_campaigns, update_campaign, and delete_campaign, which are notable gaps for managing multiple campaigns. The core workflow is usable but not a full CRUD surface.