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 full burden. It discloses the admin requirement, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'List of all teams' entails structurally. The description adds value but misses comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, admin requirement, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are slightly redundant with the prose but maintain clarity. No wasted sentences, though minor trimming is possible.

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 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and return scope. The output schema handles return values, so no need to detail them. It could improve by addressing potential errors or limitations, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'user_id: User ID (must be platform admin)', clarifying the parameter's role and constraint beyond the bare schema. Since there's only one parameter, this adequately covers semantics, though it could specify format or validation.

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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'all teams under one platform (White label)', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_team_members' or 'create_team' by focusing on whitelabel scope, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them. The title-like first line is redundant but doesn't detract from clarity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'The user who runs this endpoint must be the platform admin.' This provides clear context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'list_all_seats_of_a_specific_user' for different scopes.

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