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. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this requires specific permissions. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by organized parameter and return information. While efficient, the Returns section could be slightly more specific about what 'etc.' encompasses.

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 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter listing and return indication. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a read operation with multiple required IDs, more context about parameter relationships and authentication would improve 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists the three parameters (user_id, account_id, campaign_id) in the Args section, which adds basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or relationships between them, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding despite the parameter listing.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific campaign'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_list' or 'get_all_campaigns_statistics', which likely retrieve campaign lists or aggregated statistics rather than detailed info for a specific campaign.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_campaign_list' (likely for listing campaigns) and 'get_statistics' (likely for aggregated data), the agent receives no explicit direction about when this specific detailed retrieval is appropriate versus other campaign-related queries.

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