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 states the tool retrieves messages but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It mentions the return value ('All messages for the specified lead'), but without details on format or structure. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by elaboration and parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden, but gaps in transparency and guidelines keep it from being fully adequate.

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 lists the parameters (user_id, account_id, lead_id) and their purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details like format, examples, or constraints for these IDs. With low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully, warranting a baseline score.

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 messages for a specific lead' and elaborates with 'This gets all conversation messages associated with a particular lead.' It specifies the verb (retrieve/get) and resource (messages for a lead). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages_for_leads' or 'get_messages_from_a_specific_thread', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 sibling tools like 'get_messages_for_leads' or 'get_messages_from_a_specific_thread', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the description but lacks explicit context for selection.

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