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. While it states this is an update operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing values not mentioned. The example shows syntax but lacks behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Example). The first sentence efficiently states the core purpose. The example is helpful but makes the description longer than minimal.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with output schema present, the description covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context. The output schema reduces need to explain returns, but permission requirements and mutation implications should be addressed.

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, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section, including the structure of 'changed_values' and examples of field types. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though doesn't specify format constraints for IDs.

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 ('Update one or more variables for a lead'), the resource ('lead in a specified campaign and LinkedIn account'), and scope ('including built-in fields and custom variables'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_lead' by specifying the campaign and LinkedIn account context.

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 when needing to modify lead data within a specific campaign and LinkedIn account context, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_lead' or 'add_leads_to_campaign'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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