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 'pagination' and describes the return format, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies it likely is). The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. The only minor inefficiency is the repetition of 'Filter' in multiple parameter descriptions, but overall it's front-loaded and efficient.

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 that there's an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It mentions the return format at a high level. With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description does a good job documenting parameters. The main gap is lack of guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools, but otherwise it's reasonably complete for a listing/filtering tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by documenting all 6 parameters with clear explanations of their purpose, optionality, data types, and constraints (e.g., 'ISO 8601 datetime', '1-1000, default: 100'). This adds substantial value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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: 'List and filter leads with pagination'. It specifies the verb ('list and filter'), resource ('leads'), and key capability ('pagination'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_leads_from_campaign' or 'get_lead', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_leads_from_campaign', 'get_lead', and 'export_leads_from_campaign', there's no indication of when this general listing/filtering tool is preferred over more specific ones. The description only documents parameters without contextual usage advice.

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