Create List
create_listCreate a new, empty saved list. Free to call.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A short name for the list, e.g. "Q3 outreach targets" |
sponsorable
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds 'Free to call' hinting at no cost, but lacks details on idempotency or duplicate handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with one param and no output schema, the description is partially complete. Missing mention of returned list ID or confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% and includes a helpful example for 'name'. Description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline score is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Create' and resource 'saved list', specifies 'empty' to distinguish from add/delete siblings. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only states 'Free to call', implying safety, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_list_item or delete_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.