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 full burden. It describes a read operation ('retrieves statistics'), which is clear, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data format, or pagination. The description does not contradict annotations, but for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, it provides 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 parameter details and return information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters, though the curves enum list is lengthy but necessary. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters in detail, and mentions returns. With an output schema present, it need not explain return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like permissions or rate limits, but parameter documentation is thorough.

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 fully. It provides detailed semantics for all parameters: user_id, account_id, from_timestamp, to_timestamp, curves (with a comprehensive enum list), time_zone, and campaign_id (noting it's optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting each parameter's purpose and constraints.

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: 'Get statistics for campaigns within a time range' and specifies it retrieves statistics for all campaigns or a specific one. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_campaigns_statistics' by mentioning optional campaign_id filtering, though not explicitly contrasting with that sibling. The verb 'Get' and resource 'statistics for campaigns' are specific.

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 it retrieves statistics for all campaigns or a specific one if campaign_id is provided, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_campaigns_statistics' or 'get_step_statistics'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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