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 permission requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on duplicate emails. The 'Returns' section describes output format, but lacks details on error conditions or system behavior.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value: the opening statement defines the tool's purpose, and the parameter/return sections provide essential information without redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important context about authentication needs, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully document return values, but more operational guidance would be beneficial.

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 for 8 parameters, the description compensates well by listing all parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies which parameter is required (email) and provides basic semantic context for each field, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 action ('Create a new lead') and the resource ('in Multilead'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_lead' or 'add_leads_to_campaign', but the verb 'Create' is specific enough for basic distinction.

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 'update_lead' or 'add_leads_to_campaign'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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