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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "work": "<work>"
    },
    "name": "roast"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 31, 2026

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?