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 states 'removes' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 with a clear header, brief explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but critical details like auth needs or side effects are missing.

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 meaningful context for all 5 parameters: explaining that 'array_of_actions' are event action types, 'array_of_ids' are resource IDs, and 'url' is the target to delete. This goes beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify formats or examples.

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 specific action ('Delete a global webhook') and the mechanism ('by matching URL and event subscriptions'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'delete_webhook' (likely for non-global webhooks). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with scope differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_webhook' or prerequisites for deletion. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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