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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool imports keywords, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing blacklist entries), rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 organized sections for Args and Returns. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Success confirmation with import results'), which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 decent job by documenting all parameters and stating the purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and the output schema exists but isn't described, leaving the return value ambiguous. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 documents all 5 parameters with clear semantics, including options for 'keyword_type' and 'comparison_type'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this section fully compensates by providing essential details not in the schema, such as enum values and parameter purposes, though it lacks examples or formatting specifics for the CSV file.

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: 'Import keywords to your seat's blacklist from a CSV file.' This specifies the verb (import), resource (keywords to blacklist), and mechanism (CSV file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'import_keywords_to_global_blacklist_csv' beyond the 'seat's blacklist' vs 'global blacklist' distinction, which is implied but not directly contrasted.

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 like 'add_keywords_to_blacklist' or 'import_keywords_to_global_blacklist_csv'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the CSV file must be pre-uploaded or formatted in a specific way, and doesn't mention any exclusions or typical use cases.

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