ghl_mcp_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'execute directly' without mentioning potential side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or error behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for an execution tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no extraneous detail. The shorthand note is useful and efficiently clarifies the relationship to mcp_call_server.

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 one-parameter passthrough tool, the description is adequate but omits how to discover available tool names (e.g., ghl_mcp_tools) or what the return value looks like. The sibling list partially compensates, but the description itself doesn't guide the agent on prerequisites.

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 covers the parameter name meaning, but the description adds value by clarifying that serverId is fixed to 'ghl-mcp', implying the tool parameter must be a GHL MCP tool name. This context goes beyond the schema's generic 'GHL MCP tool name to execute.'

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Execute a specific GHL MCP tool directly.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling mcp_call_server by noting it is shorthand with serverId='ghl-mcp', making its role unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context by positioning itself as a shorthand for mcp_call_server when targeting GHL MCP, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use other sibling tools, such as status or listing tools.

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