Submit a feature request when a user asks for something not available. Use when no matching tool exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | What they were trying to do | |
| feature | Yes | What the user wants |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral consequences. It only says 'submit a feature request' without detailing what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, notification, or confirmation). This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably has side effects.
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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and usage condition. 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?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage trigger. However, the lack of behavioral transparency means an agent cannot anticipate side effects, leaving completeness moderate.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (context and feature), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so it remains at the schema-provided baseline.
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 clearly states the action (submit a feature request) and specifies the trigger (user asks for something not available). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as a fallback when no matching tool exists.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use when no matching tool exists,' which tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over alternatives. It also implicitly indicates not to use it when a matching tool is available.
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.
Many tools are duplicated across services (e.g., get_inbox vs get_outlook_inbox vs get_unified_inbox; create_calendar_event vs create_outlook_event), causing confusion. Summary tools like catch_me_up, morning_briefing, and weekly_preview overlap significantly in function. The sheer number of similar-sounding tools makes selection error likely.
Names generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent (get, check, lookup, fetch, etc.) and some tools use service-specific prefixes (hubspot_, sf_, qb_) while others do not. Mixed conventions like email_action vs send_email and append_to_doc vs append_to_excel reduce clarity, but the overall pattern is still readable.
107 tools is far beyond the typical scope for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and choose appropriately. The count feels like a kitchen-sink collection of every possible integration rather than a curated set, severely impacting usability.
The server covers a wide range of domains (email, calendar, contacts, documents, CRM, finance, messaging), but there are notable gaps like no delete for contacts or files, no update for Slack messages, and no way to list all documents. Core workflows exist for most areas, but depth is inconsistent.