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 mentions 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what happens if no conversations match. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by a context note, then parameter documentation, and finally return information. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the flow.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown in the context), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the purpose, provides parameter semantics (compensating for 0% schema coverage), and gives basic context about what 'other conversations' means. For a retrieval tool with 5 parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 provides an 'Args' section that documents all 5 parameters with clear explanations, including defaults for limit, offset, and name. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates by adding complete parameter semantics that aren't available in the schema alone.

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 other conversations (not categorized as unread)' and specifies it gets conversations from the 'All other messages' section. This provides a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('other conversations'), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_unread_conversations' beyond the 'not categorized as unread' qualifier.

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 implies usage context by stating 'not categorized as unread' and referencing the 'All other messages' section, which suggests this is for non-unread conversations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_unread_conversations', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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