What the shipped growth moves earned: tracked-link clicks per move, shipped counters, the weekly movement scoreboard, and whether GA4 and Search Console are connected. Call it after ship_move. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description confirms 'Read-only' and adds 'free' and the prerequisite of calling after ship_move. It does not discuss rate limits, but given the simple read-only nature, this is adequate.
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?
Two short sentences; front-loaded with the data list, followed by usage and cost. No 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers return content and call timing. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description instead clarifies the meaning of 'outcomes', adding value beyond the empty 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 identifies the tool as returning outcomes of shipped growth moves, enumerating specific metrics (tracked-link clicks, shipped counters, scoreboard, connection status). It lacks an explicit active verb like 'retrieves' but is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_scoreboard or get_output.
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?
Provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Call it after ship_move.' Does not list alternative tools or when not to use, but this is sufficient context for a simple reporting tool.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.