Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Shipfound

by co.shipfound
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a post or reply reads as the founder's own

writing_check
Read-only

Before a post or reply the founder built pick by pick is filled in: flags what reads as AI (an em dash, stock hype words, a label-and-colon opener, a tidy list, three short punchy sentences in a row, more than two hashtags, a pitch at the end, a link in an X reply), each with the words and why; confirms the founder's own sentence is in it as they typed it; and how much of the final text they typed beyond the options picked. Never rewrites: say each flag and let the founder change it or keep it. ready is false until their own sentence is in. Free.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "own": "<own>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "platform": "<platform>"
    },
    "name": "writing_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownYesThe sentence the founder typed themselves
kindYes
textYesThe final text, title first for a Reddit post
pickedNoThe option texts they picked, as offered
platformYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: it never rewrites, it reports each flag along with the offending words and the reason, it returns a typed-versus-picked ratio, and ready stays false until the founder's own sentence is present. That ready-gate is exactly the kind of non-obvious state behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing the response shape or how flags are ordered or counted, with no output schema to fill the gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Every clause carries information, and the long parenthetical is the substance of what the tool detects rather than filler. The problem is the structure: the lead sentence is a broken run-on that buries the actual verb deep inside it, so the agent must read the whole block before learning this is a read-only checker. Restructuring it to lead with 'Checks that ...' would cost nothing and gain clarity.

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?

For a five-parameter, read-only checker with no output schema and 60% coverage, the description is nearly complete enough to call correctly: it covers what is detected, what is returned conceptually (per-flag words plus reason, typed ratio, ready state), the no-rewrite constraint, and cost. The main missing element is any indication of what the response object actually looks like or how flags are aggregated.

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?

Schema coverage is 60%, roughly a baseline 3. The description does add meaning beyond the schema: 'the founder's own sentence ... as they typed it' clarifies the own parameter, 'how much of the final text they typed beyond the options picked' clarifies what picked is for, and the X-reply link rule ties platform into the flag logic. kind and platform still gain nothing beyond their enums, so the coverage gap is only partly closed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The core action is concrete and specific: it flags AI-sounding patterns in a drafted post or reply, confirms the founder's own sentence is present as typed, and measures how much of the final text was typed versus picked. The parenthetical enumeration of signals (em dash, stock hype words, label-and-colon opener, list, hashtags, pitch ending, link in an X reply) makes the function unambiguous and hard to confuse with generic siblings like check_content. The opening clause is garbled, but the specificity of the remainder keeps the purpose clear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Timing is implied by the lead phrase about doing this before a post or reply is filled in, and 'Never rewrites: say each flag and let the founder change it or keep it' tells the agent what to do with the output rather than acting on it. However, no alternative sibling is named and no explicit exclusion is stated, so the agent has to infer that this applies to pre-publish text review rather than to drafting or content strategy tools.

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

All Shipfound toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources