add_list_itemAdd an item to a saved list. item_id is the sponsor's domain, a podcast_id (Pro plans), a category_id, or a contact_id. Adding an item that's already in the list is a no-op. Free to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | sponsor: domain, podcast: podcast_id, category: category_id, contact: contact_id | |
| list_id | Yes | The list's id (from list_lists or create_list) | |
| item_type | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description explicitly states that adding an existing item is a no-op, reinforcing idempotency. It also clarifies non-destructive behavior.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information. Each sentence adds value.
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 add operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, idempotency, and parameter mapping. It does not mention return value, but this is acceptable given no output schema.
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 description adds nuance to item_id by mentioning 'Pro plans' for podcasts, which is not in the schema. However, the schema already has a similar description for item_id, so the additional value is modest.
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 'Add an item to a saved list' with a specific verb and resource. It details valid item_id types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_list_item.
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?
While it mentions the tool is idempotent and safe ('Free to call'), it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare with alternatives like remove_list_item.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes. Overlap exists between search/search_sponsors and fetch/get_sponsor, but descriptions clarify the different use cases (deep-research compatibility vs. full structured queries). Overall, an agent can reliably differentiate tools.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., create_list, get_sponsor), but two tools (fetch, search) are single verbs without a noun, breaking consistency. This introduces minor confusion about their scope.
17 tools is a reasonable number for a podcast sponsorship database, covering search, retrieval, list management, and contact operations. It's not overly heavy nor too thin for the domain.
The tool surface covers primary operations: searching sponsors/podcasts, retrieving details, managing lists, and handling contacts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update sponsor data, but that's likely read-only), but core workflows are well-supported.