Your listing's board: threads where people ask about what the app does, best fit first, each with a suggested first reply that helps without naming the app. Post replies yourself, from your own account. Needs a subscribed workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful context with the subscribed-workspace prerequisite and the ordering/content of results, but it does not explain pagination, rate limits, or what the view states change behaviorally.
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 short and front-loads the core concept of the listing board. The sentences are mostly purposeful, though the metaphor and the closing prerequisite could be tightened slightly.
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?
The description explains the returned board and suggested replies well enough, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, for a tool with an optional view filter and 0% schema description coverage, leaving live/posted/dismissed unexplained is a meaningful completeness gap.
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 description must compensate. It implies project context via 'Your listing's board' but never explains project_id, and it completely omits the view enum values live, posted, and dismissed.
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 identifies the resource as the listing's board of threads where people ask about the app, with best-fit ordering and suggested first replies. That is specific enough to understand what is returned, but it does not explicitly name the verb 'list' or distinguish this from sibling tools like mark_opportunity.
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 only explicit usage constraint is 'Needs a subscribed workspace.' There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings, when not to use it, or how the optional view parameter should affect usage.
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.
