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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the filtering logic ('OR within groups, AND between groups') and output format ('CSV export data or download URL'), which adds useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large exports, leaving gaps for a mutation-like export 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 a clear purpose statement, filtering logic explanation, parameter details, return information, and an example. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters, though some sections like the parameter list are lengthy but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%, but has output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's purpose, filtering logic, all parameters, and return values. The output schema handles return structure, so the description's mention of 'CSV export data or download URL' is sufficient. Minor gaps remain in behavioral aspects like error handling or export limits.

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 fully. It provides detailed explanations for all 16 parameters, including the meaning of status codes (e.g., '[1]=Discovered'), relationships between parameters (e.g., 'filter_by_connection_degree' used with 'filter_by_status=[4]'), and practical usage notes. This adds 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 specific action ('Export leads'), resource ('from a specific campaign'), and output format ('in CSV format with advanced filtering'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'export_all_campaigns' or 'get_leads_from_campaign' by emphasizing the export functionality and filtering capabilities.

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 implies usage context through the mention of 'advanced filtering' and the example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_leads_from_campaign' or 'export_all_campaigns'. It provides some guidance through the example parameters but lacks explicit when/when-not statements.

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