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 states the tool pauses 'all upcoming steps' but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether paused steps can be resumed, what happens to in-progress steps, or any rate limits. The mention of 'campaign workflow' adds some context but lacks operational details.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, elaboration on scope, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 has an output schema (returns confirmation), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, the description should provide more behavioral context about what 'pause' entails operationally.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates by explaining that 'lead_id' is 'The ID of the lead to pause'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format requirements or where to obtain this ID.

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 ('pause') and target ('execution of campaign steps for a specific lead'), with the first sentence providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resume_lead_execution' or 'return_lead_to_campaign' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 'resume_lead_execution' or 'update_lead_in_campaign'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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