Multilead Open API MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying read-only behavior, and mentions pagination via 'limit' and 'offset,' which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving 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 brief purpose statement followed by labeled sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted sentences. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, and the output schema handles return details. However, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or usage constraints, which would be beneficial for full completeness.

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 provides a clear 'Args' section explaining all four parameters: 'user_id' and 'account_id' as identifiers, and 'limit' and 'offset' for pagination with defaults. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on parameter formats or constraints.

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: 'retrieves all non-global webhooks configured for the account.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('non-global webhooks'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_global_webhooks' by explicitly mentioning 'non-global.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other webhook-related tools like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook' beyond scope.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'non-global webhooks' and mentioning the sibling 'list_global_webhooks' in the tool list, suggesting when to use this vs. that alternative. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other webhook tools (e.g., 'create_webhook') or prerequisites like required permissions.

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