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 full burden. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'summary statistics' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 headline, brief elaboration, and structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor verbosity in repeating 'summary statistics' could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters superficially but lacks depth on behavior, error handling, or output details. The output schema reduces need to explain return values, but more context on usage and constraints is needed for full adequacy.

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 lists parameters in an 'Args' section with brief explanations (e.g., 'User ID', 'Optional campaign state filter'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully clarify parameter formats, constraints, or the significance of 'campaign_state' default value 1, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Get', 'retrieves') and resource ('summary statistics for all campaigns'), specifying it provides 'platform-wide summary statistics (totals)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_statistics' or 'get_step_statistics' by emphasizing 'all campaigns' scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_statistics' or 'get_campaign_list'. The description mentions retrieving 'platform-wide' data but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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