Ripostiq

Roast my work

roast

Free 'Roast my work' — a single tough-but-fair stakeholder grilling of ANY artifact the user pastes (PRD, architecture, code, pitch, resume, plan, essay…). No login or course needed. work is the artifact (or a solid description); kind optionally hints the type (prd/architecture/code/pitch/strategy/resume/design…) to pick the right persona; focus is what they most want pushback on. Returns the roast protocol + a course recommendation. Great as an entry point when someone wants honest, pointed feedback on real work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`work`	Yes
`focus`	No
`auth_token`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only provide destructiveHint:false. The description adds context about it being a single-session, no-login interaction that returns a roast protocol and course recommendation. However, it does not disclose data handling, privacy, or any side effects beyond output generation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph with a clear lead sentence, followed by practical parameter hints and a use-case statement. It is slightly dense with parentheticals but every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description appropriately covers what it returns (roast protocol + course recommendation), what it accepts, and when to use it. It lacks error case or rate-limit details, but these are not critical for a simple feedback tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains work, kind, and focus with examples and intended purpose. Auth_token is not mentioned, but it is likely a system-managed credential. The description substantially compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'a single tough-but-fair stakeholder grilling of ANY artifact' with varied examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's free, requires no login/course, and serves as an entry point for informal feedback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly notes 'No login or course needed' and recommends use as 'an entry point when someone wants honest, pointed feedback on real work.' This implies appropriate conditions but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ripostiq tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlap or share boundaries: get_lesson vs teach_section (lesson vs section), recall_questions vs daily_drill (both spaced recall), and get_recap vs get_progress (both progress summaries). Descriptions generally help, but these pairs could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_outline, begin_course, submit_exam, etc.). Minor deviations include daily_drill (adjective_noun), interview_prep (noun_noun), login, roast, and whoami (single words), but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is on the heavy side (16-25 feels bloated), though the platform spans courses, exams, interviews, artifacts, and user management, so the breadth is defensible. Some tools could be consolidated (e.g., recall_questions and daily_drill), making it feel slightly over-scoped.

Completeness3/5

Core learner workflows are covered: discover, start, learn, assess, track, and resume. However, descriptions reference missing tools like get_review and save_artifact, creating dead ends. There's also no tool for authoring/managing courses, even though list_courses mentions user-authored courses, leaving notable gaps.

Resources

Need Help?