Get a pre-filled Calendly booking link for a call with Jeremy. Requires agent_name and human_name. Rate limited to 3 action requests per IP per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes | Your agent name or identifier, e.g. "Claude" | |
| human_name | Yes | The name of the human you represent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the rate limit, which is behavioral, but lacks clarity on whether the tool is read-only or creates a booking. Without annotations, the agent might assume it is a mutation.
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 sentences with no extraneous information, efficiently conveying purpose, requirements, and a constraint.
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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, required parameters, and a rate limit. It does not specify the return format beyond 'pre-filled link', but that is likely sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description merely restates the parameter names without adding additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb 'get' and the resource 'pre-filled Calendly booking link for a call with Jeremy', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or retrieve other resources.
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?
It mentions required parameters and a rate limit, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like send_message, or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: booking calls, retrieving different types of project details, listing projects, getting profile/resume/reel, and sending messages. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent.
The naming convention is mostly verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., book_call, get_profile, list_projects). Minor deviations like get_reel (informal noun) and send_message (verb_object) are still clear and don't disrupt pattern recognition.
10 tools is well-scoped for a portfolio server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, covering profile, projects, booking, and messaging. The count feels natural and complete.
The tool set covers the main portfolio interactions: viewing profile, resume, reels, projects (with two categories), booking a call, and sending a message. A minor gap is lack of search or filtering for projects, but the core lifecycle is present.