Simple GPT: A simple floating widget allows you to access the AI assistant immediately from.
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool, there is no risk of confusing it with another, so misselection is impossible. However, the description is vague and unclear about what 'post' actually does.
There is only one tool ('post'), so no pattern can be established or violated. It uses a bare verb with no noun, which is readable but underspecified.
A single tool is too thin for a server branded as a GPT/content generation service. There is no meaningful surface for an agent to work with.
The tool surface is severely incomplete: no lifecycle, retrieval, or parameterization operations accompany the lone generate call. Agents will hit dead ends for any non-trivial workflow.
Generate Content Billing per call: Credits: metered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"messages":[{"role":"user","content":"There are ten birds in a tree. A hunter shoots one. How many are left in the tree?"}]} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that calls are billed with metered credits, which is useful context, but it says nothing about request/response behavior, side effects, or whether generation is synchronous or asynchronous. The billing note is the only behavior disclosed beyond generating content.
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 text is short but not effectively structured: it opens by repeating the title and appends a billing note without context. It is under-specified rather than concise, leaving out critical information an agent would need to use the tool correctly.
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 one-parameter tool with a nested body, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least clarify request semantics and return behavior. It only provides a generic generate-content phrase and a billing note, forcing agents to infer from the schema example. This is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'body' parameter with an example. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it neither improves nor harms understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 repeats the title 'Generate Content' without specifying a precise operation or resource. It does not explain what kind of content is generated, how the request is processed, or how this differs from any other tool. The schema's example hints at a chat-completion API, but the description itself is essentially a tautology.
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?
There are no sibling tools or conditions for use. The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites. Only billing information is given, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
postSwift AI: Access a wide range of AI modelsβ‘, including OpenAI π€,DeepSeek π, Claude π§ , Gemini π, and.
Dictate anywhere with Letterly, then find, rewrite and translate your voice notes in your AI chat
Geolocate Me turns your phone into location context for any AI assistant. Install the iOS or Android app, connect once with OAuth, and your GPS is queryable in natural language. Ask where you are, where you parked, where you were yesterday at 3pm, or how long you were at the office β the assistant calls the tool and answers with a real street address. https://geolocateme.app
Ailis (γ’γ€γͺγΉ): put to-dos from an AI chat on your iPhone lock screen as a card.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.