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 mentions retrieval and CSV output but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, file size considerations, or authentication needs. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief overview followed by parameter explanations and return information. It uses bullet points for clarity and avoids redundancy. However, the first two sentences are somewhat repetitive ('Export campaign statistics as a CSV file' and 'This retrieves statistics for all campaigns in CSV format'), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: CSV file data'), the description does an adequate job. It covers parameter semantics and output format but lacks behavioral context like safety, performance, or error handling. For a data export tool, this leaves gaps in completeness.

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 provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters, explaining each one's purpose (e.g., 'user_id: User ID', 'curves: List of statistic types to retrieve'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or format details for timestamps and time zones.

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 campaign statistics as a CSV file, specifying the resource (campaign statistics) and format (CSV). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_all_campaigns' and 'export_leads_from_campaign' by focusing on statistics rather than campaigns or leads. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_all_campaigns_statistics' or 'get_statistics' beyond the CSV format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 for retrieving statistics in CSV format, with a reference to 'get_statistics' for curve values, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_statistics' (e.g., for API vs. file export) or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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