Multilead Open API MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation ('creates a webhook'), which implies mutation, and adds context about scoping ('non-global webhooks are scoped to specific campaigns or resources'). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Created webhook details' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by explanatory context and structured parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with bullet points in Args could be slightly more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks behavioral details like auth needs or error cases, which is a minor gap for a creation tool.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining all three parameters: user_id and account_id are identified, and webhooks is detailed with its nested structure (url, events, campaignId). This fully documents the parameters, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('non-global webhook'), explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'non-global' (vs. 'global' webhooks like create_global_webhook and delete_global_webhook), and explains the scope ('scoped to specific campaigns or resources'). This is specific and distinguishes from siblings effectively.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for creating webhooks that are 'non-global' and 'scoped to specific campaigns or resources.' It implies an alternative (global webhooks) through the sibling tool names, but does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or direct alternatives like 'use create_global_webhook for global webhooks.'

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