Partner-led growth: the six partnership types and the vocabulary of partner deals.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource: partnership types, playbook/pack info, and glossary search. There is no overlap in purpose or output.
All tools follow a get_/search_ verb pattern with clear noun objects. Minor deviation: search_ vs get_ is acceptable but not perfectly uniform.
Three tools is on the low end but reasonable for a focused informational server. It feels slightly thin but not inadequate.
The server covers core informational needs (types, playbook, glossary), but lacks any interactive or deeper resources like partner matching or detailed guides. It is complete for a read-only reference but has limited depth.
The six partnership types, each with what it is and what it costs in coordination. Read this before advising anyone on which kind of partner to go after.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, nor does it mention any risks or side effects. It also doesn't describe the return format or any constraints, which is a gap for a tool with no other metadata.
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 one concise sentence, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core content ('six partnership types') and the practical implication ('costs in coordination'), and then provides a clear usage directive.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and likely returns a list, but the description doesn't specify the return structure or any caveats. Since there's no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning the expected format, but it's adequate for a no-parameter informational 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?
The tool has no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds context about the content (six types, costs), which is useful even though no parameters exist.
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 states that the tool returns the six partnership types and their costs, so the verb ('get') and resource ('partnership types') are clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_partnership_glossary or get_playbook, which may also be relevant to partnership advice.
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 tells agents to read this before advising on partnership types, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the instruction is directive enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What the free Partner Playbook covers, who it is for, and where to get it. Also the Partner Pack, which is the execution layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes informational content but does not state what the tool actually returns, whether it is a read-only overview, or how the Partner Pack information is delivered. Minimal behavioral transparency.
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 compact and contains no filler, covering both the Playbook and Partner Pack in two short sentences. It reads somewhat like a fragment rather than a crisp verb-first tool definition, which keeps it from a 5.
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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description communicates the main subject areas, but it never explicitly states what the agent will receive after invoking the tool, nor how it relates to sibling tools. Adequate for selection but with clear gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies.
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 identifies a specific resource (the free Partner Playbook) and the main topics: what it covers, who it is for, and where to get it, plus the Partner Pack. It is clear and not tautological, but it lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools, so it is not a 5.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over get_partnership_types or search_partnership_glossary. The intended use is only implied by the subject matter; no exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the partnership glossary: what a term means in partner-led growth, and which terms relate to it. Covers commissions, attribution, the six partnership types and the flywheel stages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 10 | |
| query | No | A term or part of one, e.g. attribution, revenue share, collaborator |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify data, what happens on no results, or whether pagination is supported. The scope listing is useful but not a substitute for behavioral transparency.
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 the action and purpose, and zero filler. The second sentence efficiently enumerates coverage areas without 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?
For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent and scope. However, it omits any mention of the return format (e.g., list of definitions with related terms) or pagination behavior, which an agent might need to interpret results correctly. It's adequate but not complete.
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% for both 'query' and 'limit', so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax, defaults, or edge cases, but it doesn't need to—the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (search) and resource (partnership glossary), and elaborates on scope by naming covered topics (commissions, attribution, six partnership types, flywheel stages). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on definitions and relationships rather than listing types or playbooks, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_partnership_types or get_playbook. It doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling names alone.
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.
get_partnership_typesget_playbooksearch_partnership_glossaryAI-native PRM: track partner pipeline, deals, and commissions, and manage partner outreach.
Find a co-founder and split equity fairly — partnership analysis + co-founder marketplace.
GTM operations knowledge: delivery playbooks, field studies, benchmarks and operator interviews.
Set up and run a SaaS affiliate program by asking: rules, partners, links, commissions, reports.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
