Taste

prepare_consult_domain_expert

Get a humantaste.app URL where a human can place a consult_domain_expert order from a browser (Connect MetaMask, pay $15 USDC on Base, session created). Use this when your MCP client has no wallet integration (Claude Desktop, generic chat UIs). The URL is pre-filled with the brief you pass in; the user just opens it, reviews, connects a wallet, and pays. Returns the payment URL and the price. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Area of expertise needed (e.g. Farmer, Protestant priest, UX designer, Stockholm local, art curator, museum staff, culture journalist, food critic).
`context`	No	Optional. Why you are asking and what you are working on.
`question`	Yes	The specific question to ask the expert.
`referenceUrls`	No	Optional. Publicly accessible URLs the expert should review.
`parentSessionId`	No	Optional. If present, the URL submits a follow-up to an existing consultation (capped at 3 per parent, same expert).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tip`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`priceUsdc`	Yes
`paymentUrl`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the process, return values (payment URL, price), and cost ($15 USDC on Base). However, the term 'Free' is ambiguous—possibly meaning the tool itself costs nothing, but it contrasts with the payment requirement. Minor confusion prevents a 5.

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?

The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and return. It mentions the expected price and payment method. However, it does not describe the output schema in detail or explain optional parameters like parentSessionId, but the schema already does that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it refers to the 'brief you pass in' but does not elaborate on parameters like context, referenceUrls, or parentSessionId. No semantic enrichment.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: generating a humantaste.app URL for a human to place a consult_domain_expert order via browser. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'consult_domain_expert' by specifying the use case (no wallet integration).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when your MCP client has no wallet integration (Claude Desktop, generic chat UIs).' It explains the workflow (pre-filled URL, user reviews, connects wallet, pays), leaving no ambiguity about when to employ this tool.

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?