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 the full burden. It discloses that the action is immediate by default but can be scheduled, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the lead is already in the target campaign. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in safety and operational understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by behavioral context and a structured breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second adds timing behavior, and the parameter/return sections provide essential details without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.

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 complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, timing behavior, and parameter semantics partially. The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values beyond the brief confirmation statement. However, it could improve by addressing missing behavioral aspects like permissions or error cases.

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 meaningful semantics: it explains that 'scheduled_time' is an 'Optional ISO 8601 datetime to schedule the action', which clarifies format and purpose beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it does not describe the semantics of other parameters (e.g., what user_id or account_id represent, or how lead_id and target_campaign_id are obtained), leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action ('return a specific lead to a specific campaign') with precise verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_leads_to_campaign' (which adds new leads) and 'update_lead_in_campaign' (which modifies existing leads) by focusing on returning a lead to a campaign, implying it was previously removed or elsewhere.

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 clear context for usage: 'This action happens immediately unless a scheduled time is provided.' This indicates when to use the scheduled_time parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_leads_to_campaign' or 'update_lead_in_campaign', or mention any prerequisites (e.g., lead must exist, campaign must be active).

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