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 (implying mutation) and shows an example, but doesn't address permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if a role with the same name already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, example) and efficiently communicates essential information. The example is helpful but slightly lengthens the description. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be more front-loaded.

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 complexity (4 required parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description does well by covering all parameters and providing an example. However, with no annotations, it should ideally address more behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling.

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 documenting all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear explanations, including required status and format details for the permissions array. The example further clarifies parameter usage, adding significant value 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 action ('create a role') and target resource ('for a specific team with custom permissions'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_team' or 'create_tag', 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, prerequisites, or context. While sibling tools like 'get_team_roles' and 'update_team_member' exist, there's no mention of relationships or when this creation tool is appropriate versus those other team-related operations.

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