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 an 'action' that 'disconnects', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the disconnection is reversible, what happens to existing data, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.

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 (title, action description, Args, Returns) and uses minimal words. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides the basic operation and parameter meanings. However, it lacks important context about behavioral implications, permissions needed, or what 'disconnection' entails. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more for a destructive-seeming operation.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents both parameters ('user_id' and 'account_id') with brief explanations. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints. With 2 parameters fully documented in the description, this meets the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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 ('disconnects') and resource ('a specific LinkedIn account from the seat on the platform'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'connect_linkedin_account', but the verb 'disconnect' vs 'connect' provides implicit distinction, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions it disconnects 'a specific LinkedIn account from the seat', but doesn't explain prerequisites, consequences, or when this operation is appropriate versus other seat management tools like 'cancel_seat' or 'suspend_or_unsuspend_seat'.

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