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 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if lead_id doesn't exist), rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 and front-loaded: the first line states the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting enhances readability.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, parameter meaning, and return content. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or prerequisites, which would be beneficial despite the output schema.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'lead_id' as 'The unique identifier of the lead', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type declaration. However, it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string ID) or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 'lead by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_leads' (which lists multiple) and 'create_lead' (which creates new). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_lead_messages' or 'get_leads_from_campaign', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 to prefer 'get_lead' over 'list_leads' for single-record access, or how it relates to other lead-related tools like 'update_lead' or 'delete_lead'. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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