storyflo

Quote a partnership tier

quote_partnership

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the indicative partnership tier (starter / growth / scale / enterprise) + monthly fee + storyflo revenue-share bps for a partner integrating storyflo into their agent product. Pure pricing-matrix lookup; no contract is created. The agent should hand the returned contact_url to the human to open a formal partnership thread. Public — no auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vertical`	Yes	Vertical scope the partner plans to cover.
`monthly_impressions`	Yes	Expected monthly impressions across the partner's surface.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations by stating the tool is public with no auth required, returns specific data (tier, fee, bps, contact_url), and is a pure lookup. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and there is no contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences with front-loaded output specifics, efficient and without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (tier, fee, bps, contact_url) and the tool's safe, non-destructive nature. With annotations covering safety, the description is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema, but schema descriptions for 'vertical' and 'monthly_impressions' are already provided. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'indicative partnership tier', listing specific outputs (starter/growth/scale/enterprise, monthly fee, bps). It distinguishes the tool from siblings, most of which are get/search/subscribe operations, by emphasizing it is a pure pricing-matrix lookup.

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?

The description outlines when to use the tool (when a partner needs an indicative tier) and what not to do (no contract created, agent should pass contact_url to human). Although it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for formal partnership creation, the guidance on next steps is clear.

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

All storyflo 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between `get_my_private_feed`, `subscribe_topic`, and `list_subscriptions`—all return or manage feed URLs, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise, categories like publisher, fund manager, and search tools are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `get_article`, `search_articles`, `publisher_upload_audio`). Exceptions like `digest` are single-word verbs but still fit the pattern. No mixed conventions are present.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many' by the rubric. While the broad scope (news, podcasting, publishing, fund management, embedding) justifies a large surface, the count still adds cognitive load and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major domains: search, retrieval, subscriptions, publishing, fund manager operations, and embedder network. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of an unsubscribe or delete-episode tool, but the core workflows are well-supported and agents can accomplish most tasks.

Resources

Need Help?