AestheticsPro by Cotlet

Create text list in AestheticsPro

aestheticspro_create_text_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create text list in the user's own AestheticsPro account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser. AestheticsPro's official API: AestheticsPro offers "Custom API solutions" only as custom work on its $350 a month Enterprise plan, arranged with AestheticsPro, and publishes no public API documentation or self-serve API key page (checked 11 Nov 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aestheticspro_create_text_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while explaining why: the tool returns instructions and 'opens nothing by itself.' It also discloses the shape of the output (screens, buttons, fields) and the API availability constraint, which annotations cannot convey; only the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause adds nothing behavioral.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first two sentences are well front-loaded and carry the operative information. The trailing API-plan paragraph, including the 'checked 11 Nov 2026' timestamp, reads as justification boilerplate rather than guidance an agent needs to select or call the tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description covers what it returns, that it mutates nothing, and what to do next. A note on what the returned steps look like structurally (or failure modes) would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description correctly implies no input is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (text list) and clarifies the real behavior: it returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the action. The name-vs-behavior tension ('Create' vs 'opens nothing by itself') is resolved in the second sentence, but the description never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as create_email_list or send_client_text.

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?

It does establish a workflow — get instructions here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools — which is useful routing. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to the sibling list tools an agent would otherwise pick for list creation, so the choice is only implied.

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

All AestheticsPro by Cotlet 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?