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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation of a lead ('Created lead information') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, return note, and example. Each sentence adds value, but the example could be more integrated or the parameter details slightly condensed for optimal brevity without losing clarity.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like error cases or side effects, which is a minor gap given the output schema's support.

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 effectively explains all four parameters: clarifies that 'campaign_id' is required, specifies the mutual exclusivity between 'profile_url' and 'email', and provides examples for 'custom_fields'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail data formats or constraints further.

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 'lead to a selected campaign', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_lead' (which likely creates a lead without campaign association) and 'update_lead_in_campaign' (which modifies existing leads), establishing clear functional boundaries.

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 by specifying that either profileUrl or email is required, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_lead' or 'update_lead_in_campaign'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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