Taste

list_expert_profiles

Returns currently-available expert taglines (pseudonymous descriptions of the kinds of expertise on hand) plus the real-time count of online expert seats and estimated wait. Use this as a cheap pre-flight check before calling a paid tool. Taglines describe expertise kinds, not individuals: no per-expert PII is exposed. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`onlineExperts`	Yes
`qualityPolicy`	Yes
`expertTaglines`	Yes
`estimatedResponseMins`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses it is free, no PII exposed, and returns non-identifying taglines. This adds behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences front-loading the main output, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, its cost, and privacy implications. Nothing is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4, and description adds no parameter info because none needed.

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 clearly states the tool returns expert taglines, online seat count, and estimated wait. It distinguishes itself as a free pre-flight check before paid 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?

Explicitly says to use as a cheap pre-flight check before paid tools, providing context for when to use. Does not list exclusions but implies alternatives are the paid tools among siblings.

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

All Taste tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of human expert evaluation: dispute arbitration, domain consultation, content review, certificate verification, etc. Even similar tools like review_content and prepublish_review differ in their focus (facts vs. cultural sensitivity), and order_think_tank_session_30 and _60 only differ by duration, which is natural.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores (e.g., arbitrate_dispute, list_offerings, verify_certificate). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs, making the naming predictable and easy for an agent to infer functionality.

Tool Count5/5

With 17 tools, the server strikes a good balance—enough to cover a wide range of human expert evaluation tasks without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific, justifiable purpose within the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows like ordering evaluations, retrieving results, requesting revisions, and verifying certificates. However, there is no explicit tool for ordering an illustration (only revision), which is a minor gap. Overall, the surface is nearly complete for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?