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 mentions the output format (CSV) and suggests either direct CSV data or a download URL, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, potential rate limits, file size limitations, authentication requirements beyond the parameters, or what happens if no campaigns exist. For an export tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, arguments, and returns. Each section is brief and focused. The formatting with headings makes it scannable. However, the 'Args' section could be more informative, and some redundancy exists between the opening statement and the 'Returns' section about CSV format.

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 an export tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, and the output schema should handle return value documentation. However, for a data export operation, it lacks important context about performance characteristics, data scope (all campaigns for which timeframe?), and practical usage considerations that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description includes an 'Args' section that lists the two parameters (user_id and account_id) but provides minimal semantic context - it only states they are IDs without explaining their purpose, format, or relationship. While it identifies the parameters, it doesn't add meaningful context about why both are needed or how they interact, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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 tool exports all campaigns in CSV format, providing a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('all campaigns'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_leads_from_campaign' and 'export_statistics_csv' by focusing on campaigns rather than leads or statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_campaign_list' or 'get_all_campaigns_statistics', which might provide similar data in different formats.

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. It doesn't mention when this export is appropriate compared to 'get_campaign_list' (which might return structured data) or 'export_statistics_csv' (which focuses on statistics). There's also no information about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for CSV export versus API consumption.

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