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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying a read operation) but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what happens with invalid inputs. The return format is mentioned ('List of leads'), but without details on structure or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It uses clear sections ('Args', 'Returns') and avoids redundancy. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, and some sentences are slightly verbose.

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, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like error cases or performance characteristics. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further on returns.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters (user_id, account_id, thread_id) with brief explanations. This compensates somewhat for the schema gap, though it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples. The baseline is 3 since the description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Retrieve leads') and resource ('who are part of a specific conversation thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other lead-related tools like 'get_leads_from_campaign' or 'get_lead' by specifying the thread-based filtering, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 prerequisites, typical use cases, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_conversations_by_identifiers' or 'get_messages_from_a_specific_thread' that might overlap in functionality. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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