Multilead Open API MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a write operation ('Add'), which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The 'Returns: Success confirmation' provides minimal output information, but lacks detail on what that confirmation contains or failure modes.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter documentation. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections provide organized information. While efficient, the 'via JSON' qualifier could be integrated more smoothly, and the return statement is somewhat terse.

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 by documenting all parameters thoroughly. The output schema exists (though unspecified), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, it provides adequate context, though behavioral aspects could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. It explains all 5 parameters with clear examples (e.g., keywords: ['test', 'test123']) and enumerates options for keyword_type and comparison_type. This adds substantial meaning 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 specific action ('Add keywords to the global blacklist') and resource ('global blacklist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_keywords_to_blacklist' (non-global) and 'import_keywords_to_global_blacklist_csv' (CSV import). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 implies usage for adding keywords to a global blacklist via JSON, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the CSV import sibling. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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