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/finds conversations, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no matches are found. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as whether it's idempotent or has side effects.

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 bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized at four sentences, with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into the flow, and some wording is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'identifiers' mentioned multiple times), preventing a perfect score.

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 (3 required parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address how the tool behaves in different scenarios. This results in a baseline score with clear room for improvement.

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 lists parameters (user_id, account_id, identifiers) with brief examples (e.g., 'List of identifiers to search for (e.g., LinkedIn IDs)'). However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds some semantic value by clarifying the purpose of 'identifiers,' but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as format constraints or relationships between parameters.

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 using specific identifiers' and 'finds all conversations associated with the provided identifiers.' It specifies the resource (conversations) and action (retrieve/find) with examples of identifier types (LinkedIn profile IDs, email addresses). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_other_conversations,' which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other conversation-retrieval tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_all_conversations,' 'get_campaign_conversations'), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is needing identifiers to search, but this is basic parameter information rather than usage guidance.

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