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 data (implying read-only) and returns a list with permissions, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Example) and front-loaded the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though the example could be more concise (e.g., omitting 'Your user ID' explanation). Every sentence earns its place, but minor verbosity in the example prevents a perfect score.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return overview, though it lacks behavioral context like error handling or permissions. The output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation, making this adequate for the context.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining their purpose and marking them as required. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only shows types), though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., ID format, user validation). Given the coverage gap, this provides adequate but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 all roles for a specific team' - a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('roles for a specific team'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_team_members' or 'create_team_role', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from them. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for 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 (e.g., team existence, user permissions), nor does it suggest when other tools like 'get_team_members' or 'create_team_role' might be more appropriate. The example shows usage but offers no contextual guidance.

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