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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves conversations with filtering and pagination, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large datasets. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 followed by parameter documentation and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool. The only inefficiency is repeating 'all' in both the title and description, but overall it's front-loaded and each section earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It documents parameters well and mentions the return type, but lacks behavioral context about safety, performance, or error handling. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return values, but for a data retrieval tool with filtering, more operational guidance would be helpful.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all 6 parameters with clear explanations, default values, and optional status. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this documentation fully compensates by providing semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. The only minor gap is not specifying format constraints (e.g., tag_ids as 'comma-separated list'), but overall it adds substantial value.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve all conversations from all channels' with optional filtering by name and tags. It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('conversations'), and scope ('from all channels'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_conversations' or 'get_other_conversations', which would require a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't compare with sibling tools like 'get_campaign_conversations' (for campaign-specific conversations) or 'get_conversations_by_identifiers' (for targeted retrieval). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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