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 'retrieves' data (implying read-only) and includes pagination details, but lacks critical information such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is safe or has side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with potential access control implications.

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, and bullet points for args and returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., integrating the title into the first sentence).

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks context on permissions, error handling, and comparison to siblings, which are important for a whitelabel operation. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 adds meaningful context for both parameters: it explains that 'limit' controls the maximum number of results (default: 30) and 'offset' sets the starting position (default: 0), which clarifies pagination behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by providing essential usage details beyond the bare schema.

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 the list of all your users') and specifies the context ('as a whitelabel'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_information' or 'list_users_associated_with_a_specific_seat', which might offer similar user-related data but with different scopes or filters.

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., whitelabel permissions), exclusions, or compare it to other user-listing tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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