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 (implied read-only) and mentions pagination via limit/offset, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements (user_id, account_id), rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation marks conversations as read. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured: a brief purpose statement followed by well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear formatting for parameters.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a solid job: it explains the purpose, documents all parameters with defaults, and specifies the return value. An output schema exists, so return details aren't needed. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, side effects), keeping it from a 5.

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 well by documenting all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear semantics: user_id, account_id, limit (default 100), offset (default 0), and name (optional contact filter). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter formats or constraints (e.g., ID formats).

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 unread conversations' with optional filtering by contact name. It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('unread conversations'), and scope ('all conversations that have not been marked as read'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_other_conversations', which would require a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'get_all_conversations' or 'get_other_conversations', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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