Multilead Open API MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the complex filtering logic (6 groups with OR/AND combinations), describes pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), and clarifies the return format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and filtering overview, but becomes verbose with detailed parameter listings that could be more efficiently structured. While all information is valuable given the complex parameter set, the Args/Returns/Example sections create redundancy with the initial overview, making it longer than necessary.

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?

For a complex filtering tool with 16 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides excellent coverage of parameters and behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The main gap is lack of operational context like rate limits or error handling, but overall it's quite complete for agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 16 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. Each parameter gets clear explanations, including enum values for status filters, relationships between parameters (e.g., filter_by_connection_degree used with filter_by_status=[4]), and practical examples of what each filter does.

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 with specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('leads from a specific seat'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'advanced filtering' capabilities. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'get_lead' (single lead) and 'list_leads' (likely simpler listing).

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for retrieving leads with advanced filtering from a specific seat/account. It implies usage through the detailed filter explanations but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the filtering focus suggests differentiation from simpler listing tools.

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