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 retrieving conversations and includes pagination (limit/offset) and filtering (name), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose statement, elaboration, and a parameter/return section. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters and output.

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 with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does a good job explaining parameters and stating the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error cases) and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations, keeping it from a score of 5.

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 explanations for all 6 parameters: user_id, account_id, campaign_id, limit, offset, and name, including defaults and optionality. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could include more context (e.g., format of IDs).

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 conversations from a specific campaign' and elaborates with 'This gets all conversations associated with a particular campaign.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('conversations'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_conversations_by_identifiers', which prevents a score of 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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_conversations_by_identifiers', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the focus on campaigns, but explicit alternatives are missing.

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