add_reviewPost a review (comment) on a project. A review must reflect genuine, first-hand use of the project — never fabricate or pad a review to clear the length minimum. Body must be at least 20 characters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Your honest review (min 20 chars). | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id or slug to review. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral constraints beyond annotations: reviews must be authentic and meet length minimum. Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), so description complements well.
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: first states purpose, second adds key constraints. Front-loaded, no wasted words.
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?
With 2 required params, no output schema, and annotations covering mutation, the description fully covers what, when-not, and constraints.
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 coverage 100%, so baseline 3. Description restates body minimum length (already in schema) but adds ethical nuance. No new parameter-level details.
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 'Post a review (comment) on a project' with a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like reply_to_review and like_project.
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?
Provides clear context about genuine use, no fabrication, and minimum length. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but offers strong ethical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose: project CRUD, reviews, likes, bounties, and wallet. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
8 tools cover the essential actions for a project review platform without being excessive or insufficient.
Core operations are present, but missing update and delete for projects and reviews, which are minor gaps agents can work around.