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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether this affects existing webhooks, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The return statement is minimal and doesn't describe format or error handling.

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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for webhook configuration. It's appropriately sized at 6 sentences, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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?

For a creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics and clear purpose. However, it lacks important behavioral context like permissions, side effects, and error handling that would be needed for safe invocation.

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%, but the description's Args section provides meaningful context for all 3 parameters: user_id as 'User ID', account_id as 'Account ID', and webhooks as a list with url and events details. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify event type formats or URL validation.

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 tool creates a global webhook that listens for events across all campaigns and resources in the account. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'global webhook' with scope information, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_webhook' tool.

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 like 'create_webhook' or 'list_global_webhooks'. It mentions the scope ('across all campaigns and resources') but gives no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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