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 states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns paginated results (despite having limit/offset parameters). The description lacks details on permissions or side effects.

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 brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place by defining parameters and return value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into the Args section, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a fair job explaining parameters and return value. However, it lacks context on authentication, error cases, or how global webhooks differ from regular ones. With an output schema presumably present, the return description is adequate, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing behavioral details.

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 description must compensate. It documents all 4 parameters with clear explanations: user_id and account_id as identifiers, limit with default and purpose, offset with default and pagination role. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., string patterns for IDs).

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 with 'List global webhooks' and 'retrieves all global webhooks configured for the account', providing a specific verb (list/retrieve) and resource (global webhooks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_webhooks' by specifying 'global' scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_webhooks' or 'get_webhook'. The description mentions retrieving 'all global webhooks' but doesn't clarify if this is for administrative purposes, auditing, or integration setup, leaving usage context implied at best.

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