Still losing time to small decisions? Spin or Flip brings randomization into Claude so you can offload mental load to chance instantly.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool has a clearly described purpose: generating a shareable decision wheel URL.
There is no naming pattern to violate since only one tool exists. The name 'spinorflip' is recognizable and matches the domain, and there are no competing conventions.
One tool feels thin for a general-purpose server, but it is appropriately scoped to the narrow domain of creating shareable decision wheels. It's not an extreme mismatch, but on the lower edge of acceptable.
The tool fully covers its intended purpose: generating a shareable spinning-wheel URL. There are no lifecycle gaps because the domain is a single, atomic wall generation action.
Send a decision wheel to Spin or Flip and get a shareable spinning-wheel URL. Use this whenever a user wants to spin a wheel or make a random decision. Before calling this tool, generate the wheel yourself: pick a short title (2–6 words) and 6–12 options (1–4 words each) based on the topic. Optionally include a CSS linear-gradient background that matches the mood of the topic. Returns a URL the user can open to spin the wheel instantly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short wheel title, 2–6 words (e.g. "Best Pizza Styles", "Weekend Activities") | |
| options | Yes | 6–12 options, 1–4 words each (e.g. ["Margherita", "Pepperoni", "BBQ Chicken"]) | |
| gradient | No | Optional CSS linear-gradient matching the topic mood (e.g. "linear-gradient(135deg, #f97316 0%, #ef4444 100%)") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (a shareable URL) and requires the caller to generate wheel content beforehand, but does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or data handling, which are relevant for an external service call.
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?
Three sentences, every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and how to prepare inputs. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and procedural steps. It could mention error scenarios or validation behavior, but the current level suffices for straightforward use.
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%, and the description largely restates the same constraints (title 2–6 words, options 6–12 items, 1–4 words each). It adds minor guidance about matching the topic mood, but does not substantially deepen understanding beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Send a decision wheel to Spin or Flip') and immediately states the output ('get a shareable spinning-wheel URL'). It clearly distinguishes this tool's purpose from any generic random-decision tool.
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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this whenever a user wants to spin a wheel or make a random decision') and provides concrete pre-call instructions on generating the title, options, and optional gradient. No alternatives exist among siblings, so no exclusions are needed.
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.
spinorflip
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.