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 the action and return value but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the action is reversible, side effects on the seat or user, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 title-like header, brief action statement, and organized sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly verbose compared to just listing parameters.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and notes the return value, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or effects. The output schema reduces the need to detail returns, but more guidance on usage and risks is warranted.

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 clearly explains all three parameters: 'user_id' as 'User ID who owns the seat', 'account_id' as 'Account/Seat ID to suspend/unsuspend', and 'suspended' as 'True to suspend, False to unsuspend'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could note data 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 action ('suspend or unsuspend') and the resource ('a specific seat within a specific team'), with the title reinforcing this. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cancel_seat' and 'reactivate_seat' by focusing on suspension status rather than cancellation or reactivation.

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 like 'cancel_seat' or 'reactivate_seat', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for suspension/unsuspension. It only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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