Multilead Open API MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Add' implying a write operation and 'Success confirmation' for returns, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by explaining key aspects without fluff. Slightly verbose in listing all enum options, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like side effects or error cases. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. It's adequate but misses mutation-specific context.

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. It provides detailed semantics for all 5 parameters: 'user_id' and 'account_id' are identified, 'keywords' is explained with an example, and 'keyword_type' and 'comparison_type' list all enum options. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and resource 'keywords to your seat's blacklist', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_keywords_to_global_blacklist' by specifying 'seat's blacklist' rather than global, though not explicitly contrasting them. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_keywords_to_global_blacklist' or 'import_keywords_to_blacklist_csv'. The description implies usage for adding keywords via JSON, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. It's a basic statement without operational guidance.

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