Get today's WriteFlow writing prompt — the daily creative-writing prompt from writeflow.ink, with its WriteFlow day number and how to respond (100, 250 or 500 words).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return elements (prompt, day number, word count) but does not state whether it is read-only, if there are any side effects, or any rate limits. It is adequate but lacks depth.
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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description explains the essential return values. It could be more detailed about the format of the prompt or day number, but it is largely complete for a basic retrieval tool.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (prompt, day number, word count) which is relevant for understanding the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.
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 'Get today's WriteFlow writing prompt', specifying the source (writeflow.ink), the inclusion of a day number, and the word count options (100, 250, 500 words). It is a specific verb-resource combination with sufficient detail.
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 implies usage for retrieving the daily prompt but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'get_contest_info'. While the purpose is clear, no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves weekly contest details, the other retrieves the daily prompt. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix and noun pattern, making it easy to predict behavior from the name.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but could be appropriate if the scope is purely informational. However, it borders on too few for a typical contest/prompt service.
The tools only provide read operations for contest info and prompts. Missing essential actions like submitting an entry or viewing results leaves significant gaps for a writing contest platform.