Multilead Open API MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval action (not destructive) and mentions the return format (list with IDs), but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 title, action statement, parameter explanations, and return information in separate sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the second sentence about using IDs could be slightly more integrated.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like permissions or limitations.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'user_id' as 'ID of the user whose saved sequences to retrieve' and 'team_id' as 'ID of the team that the user is part of'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format or 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 action ('retrieves all sequence templates') and specifies the resource ('saved sequences from a user who is a part of certain team'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user-specific sequence templates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_campaign_list' or 'get_user_information'.

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 by mentioning the returned IDs can be used in 'Create Campaign From A Sequence Template' endpoint, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'get_' tools for campaigns or users) or any prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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