request_toolHit a capability wall? Describe a tool you wish this server had and the task you were trying to accomplish. The operator reviews every submission; the most-requested capabilities get built. Free, no payment ever required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| use_case | No | The task you were trying to accomplish when you needed it. | |
| description | Yes | What the tool should do, in plain language. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that 'the operator reviews every submission' and that it is 'Free, no payment ever required,' which adds useful context beyond the annotations (all false). However, it does not mention submission persistence, response format, or any asynchronous side effects. Since annotations provide no safety hints, the description partially compensates but could be richer.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with an engaging question, and each sentence contributes meaning. It includes the what, how, process, and outcome without any filler. This is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.
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 lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage trigger, required input (tool description and task), and the review process. It could mention what happens after submission (e.g., no direct response), but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to infer the tool's role.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('description' and 'use_case'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, matching the schema's semantics. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 purpose: to request a new tool by describing it and the task. It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource ('a tool this server had'), and it distinguishes itself from all sibling tools because none are about requesting capabilities. The opening question 'Hit a capability wall?' effectively frames the tool's function.
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 gives clear context for when to use: 'Hit a capability wall?' This implies the tool is for situations where existing capabilities are insufficient. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the unique nature of a request tool makes that less necessary. The guidance on what to describe (tool and task) is concrete.
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.
Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose (counters, cron, DNS, email, fixtures, webhooks, KV, locks, name checks, regex, timers, timezone, URL checks). There is no functional overlap; even closely related tools like timer_schedule and cron_next are clearly separated by descriptions.
The dominant naming pattern is <resource>_<action> (e.g., inbox_create, kv_get, lock_acquire, tz_convert). A few tools deviate, such as counter_next and cron_next (resource_qualifier), fixture_rows (resource_noun), and request_tool (verb_noun), but these are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.
At 24 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 range, leaning heavy. The tools cover many independent utility categories, each with a minimal set of operations, but the overall count feels slightly excessive for a single server, though it is justified by the broad scope.
The server provides complete lifecycles for its functional areas: KV (set/get/list/delete), inbox (create/poll/delete), locks (acquire/release), timers (schedule/status/cancel/verify). Each utility is self-contained, and the request_tool offers a path for extending the surface. No obvious gaps or dead ends within the intended domain.