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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if lead IDs are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels add slight verbosity. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain returns, but it should do more to compensate for missing annotations and schema documentation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameters in an 'Args' section with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure), constraints, or relationships, leaving some semantic gaps despite covering all three parameters.

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 ('Retrieve tags') and target resource ('for specific leads'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tags_for_seat' or 'get_tags_of_a_specific_seat' that also retrieve tags but for different entities, missing full sibling distinction.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_tags_for_seat' and 'get_tags_of_a_specific_seat' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is preferred for lead-based tag retrieval or if there are specific prerequisites or constraints for its use.

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