Cheap one-call summary of change-request state for a project. Returns totals + by-page + by-reviewer breakdowns + oldest/newest unresolved timestamps. Call this BEFORE drilling into individual CRs to frame the work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | The project slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, repeatable operation. The description adds context about low cost ('Cheap'), which is behavioral info beyond annotations. It also details the output structure, which annotations don't cover.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key value ('Cheap one-call summary'), then details of output, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (totals, breakdowns, timestamps). It also provides usage context. With only one simple parameter and annotations present, it is mostly complete; a slight gap is not specifying the default ordering or pagination, but not critical for a summary tool.
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?
Only one parameter (project) with schema providing full description ('The project slug'). The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does explain the overall output, which indirectly clarifies parameter necessity. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose: a cheap one-call summary of change-request state for a project. It specifies what is returned (totals, breakdowns, timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_change_request (individual CR) and list_change_requests (list).
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?
The description explicitly advises to 'Call this BEFORE drilling into individual CRs to frame the work,' providing clear context on when to use this tool. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the guidance is actionable and distinguishes from more targeted tools.
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 resource and action, with clear separation between CRUD operations, workflow management, and administrative tasks. No two tools appear to have overlapping purposes; even similar-sounding tools like list_change_requests and pinappai_list_apply_inbox serve different contexts.
The tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern, with a subset of workflow-related tools consistently prefixed with 'pinappai_'. There is no mixing of naming conventions, making the function of each tool predictable from its name.
With 38 tools, the server is significantly over the typical well-scoped range. While the tools cover many aspects of the platform, the sheer number makes it heavy for an agent to navigate effectively.
The server covers core operations for projects, workspaces, members, and API keys, but lacks programmatic creation, update, and individual deletion of change requests. This creates notable gaps in the ability to fully manage the CR lifecycle programmatically.
