Shager

Create a Pinterest board

create_pinterest_board

Destructive

Creates a public board on a Pinterest account (name up to 50 characters) and returns it ({id, name, privacy}) for per_channel.pinterest_board_id. The board shows on the person's public Pinterest profile at once, so create one only when your human asked for it. At most 10 new boards an hour per account, and per person. (Not available in an unclaimed sandbox.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_pinterest_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`channel_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace id from list_workspaces

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the board is public, appears on the person's Pinterest profile immediately, has a per-account/per-person rate limit, and is unavailable in unclaimed sandboxes. Those are meaningful behavioral traits for a write operation with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loads the core action, visibility, constraints, and return value. Most sentences earn their place, though the return-field parenthetical and rate-limit details make it slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description adequately explains the returned fields and downstream id. However, for a 3-parameter create tool with low schema description coverage, it leaves channel_id unexplained and introduces a name-length conflict with the schema, so it is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters such as channel_id, but it does not explain channel_id at all. Worse, it says the board name is 'up to 50 characters' while the schema allows maxLength 200, creating a direct parameter constraint conflict.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a public board on a Pinterest account.' It also states the return shape and intended downstream use for per_channel.pinterest_board_id, so an agent can distinguish this create-board operation from unrelated sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear usage constraint: create only when the human explicitly asked for it. It also names two important exclusions/limits: unclaimed sandboxes are unsupported and there is a rate limit of 10 new boards per hour per account/person. It does not name alternatives, but none of the siblings appear to be a direct board-creation alternative.

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

All Shager tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?