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. While 'Create a new team' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the user_id must be valid, what happens if a team with that name exists, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and efficiently organized: a clear purpose statement, followed by Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's function immediately apparent.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description does an adequate job. It explains the parameters well and mentions the return value, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, constraints). The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more behavioral transparency would improve completeness.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'user_id' is explained as 'who will own the team' and 'name' as 'the name of the team to create.' With schema description coverage at 0%, this significantly compensates by providing semantic understanding beyond the bare schema types. The example further clarifies usage.

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 team') and the resource ('team for a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_team_role' or 'list_teams_under_the_users_white_label', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools like 'create_team_role' or 'invite_team_member' might be more appropriate. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context.

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