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' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or describes the return format beyond 'step-by-step statistics.' For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as whether it's idempotent or how errors are handled.

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, elaboration, and separate sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized at four sentences, with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('step-by-step statistics'), and the structure could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions) and detailed usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but without annotations, more disclosure on operation traits would improve completeness. It's functional but has clear gaps.

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 includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes the three parameters (user_id, account_id, campaign_id), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't specify data formats (e.g., string vs. integer for campaign_id is only in schema), constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, this compensates partially but not fully, meeting the baseline for some added value.

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 step statistics for a specific campaign' and elaborates with 'retrieves statistics for individual campaign steps within a specific campaign.' This specifies the verb ('get'/'retrieve'), resource ('step statistics'), and scope ('within a specific campaign'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_statistics' or 'get_all_campaigns_statistics,' 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 mentions retrieving statistics for 'individual campaign steps' but doesn't clarify if this is for detailed analysis versus aggregate statistics from other tools, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_statistics' or 'get_all_campaigns_statistics' for comparison. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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