Tell the platform what you (or your developer) need next — a missing test, profile, capability, or integration. Requests directly shape the roadmap. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | What you wish existed (10-1000 characters). | |
| audience | No | 'bot' or 'developer'. | |
| bot_role | No | OPTIONAL — what job this bot does. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Free' and that requests shape the roadmap, but does not disclose whether the tool creates a record, returns a confirmation, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts user input.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences plus 'Free.' It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a meaningful note about roadmap impact without any filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is generally adequate. However, it lacks any info about what happens after submission (e.g., output, confirmation, next steps), which would complete the picture for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some nuance by giving examples like 'missing test, profile, capability, or integration' to clarify the 'need' parameter, but it does not add meaning for 'audience' or 'bot_role', which are left to 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Tell the platform what you (or your developer) need next' — a feature request submission. It uses a specific verb ('Tell'/'request') and resource ('platform'), and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like get_network_stats or score_text, which handle data retrieval/scoring.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a feature, capability, or integration, and 'Requests directly shape the roadmap.' It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the siblings are obviously unrelated, so the appropriate use case is unambiguous.
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 target clearly distinct resources: scoring, profiles, pricing, network stats, fee quotes, and feature requests. The only mild ambiguity is between get_pricing and preview_fee, since both deal with fees, but their descriptions clarify one is a general manifest and the other is a wallet-specific quote.
The set mostly follows a snake_case verb_noun convention: get_network_stats, list_profiles, preview_fee, request_feature, score_text. storelayer_widget_menu is the clear outlier, using a noun-heavy compound with no verb and a different naming pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a platform-facing MCP server and avoids bloat. However, storelayer_widget_menu is an unrelated promotional detour that makes the set feel slightly less well-scoped to its core EQ-scoring purpose.
Core discovery and free scoring are covered well: stats, pricing, profiles, fee previews, feature requests, and score_text. However, paid benchmark submission, progress/trajectory retrieval, and bundle purchasing are only described as external REST endpoints rather than actual tools, leaving notable gaps in the full validation loop.