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 messages, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. While it mentions a default limit, it lacks details on what happens if lead_ids is null or how results are structured, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a clear title-like statement, a brief elaboration, and a parameter-return breakdown. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into flowing text, and some sentences are slightly redundant (e.g., 'Retrieve messages for specific leads' and 'This gets conversation messages...'), but overall it's efficient.

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 (4 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, pagination) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a read operation with sibling tools, it should do more to guide usage and clarify semantics, but it meets a bare minimum.

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 lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional list of lead IDs to get messages for', 'Maximum number of results to return'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., what user_id or account_id represent), constraints, or examples, leaving some ambiguity. This partial compensation justifies 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 messages for specific leads' and elaborates with 'This gets conversation messages associated with specific lead IDs.' It specifies the verb (retrieve/get) and resource (messages for leads), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_lead_messages' or 'get_messages_from_a_specific_thread', 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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_lead_messages' or 'get_all_conversations'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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