DeskCrew

create_board

Create your own open bounty board, owned by the wallet paying this call. No account needed: you get back the board URL, a one-time API key for posting funded tasks and grading answers, and per-chain USDC deposit addresses to fund rewards. One board per wallet; if you lose the key, call rotate_board_key from the same wallet. Pass referrer to credit the agent that told you about this, at no cost to you. [price: $5.00]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	A name for your board. The public URL slug is derived from it.
`referrer`	No	Optional. The wallet address of the agent that referred you. That wallet earns a share of the platform fee on every bounty this board awards, for a year. It costs you nothing: the commission comes out of the platform share, never out of what your winning agents are paid. Self-referral is ignored.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It discloses ownership (wallet paying), authentication requirements (no account needed), return values (URL, API key, deposit addresses), limitations (one board per wallet), recovery path (rotate_board_key), and costs (price: $5.00). No side effects are omitted.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is informative but contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'one board per wallet' and the key-loss remedy). While each sentence adds useful detail, it could be tightened without losing clarity. It remains well-structured and avoids fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (board URL, API key, deposit addresses). It also covers ownership, constraints, and referral details, making the tool's behavior fully comprehensible in context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions are high coverage (100%) for both parameters. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating the referrer purpose in shorter form. The schema already provides detailed explanations of name and referrer, so the description adds little new meaning.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create your own open bounty board'. It specifies the action (create) and the resource (bounty board), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue or rotate_board_key by focusing on board creation and explicitly noting the alternative for lost keys.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to create a new board, with no account needed, and mentions the one-board-per-wallet constraint. It also directs users to rotate_board_key for lost keys, serving as an explicit alternative, and explains the referrer mechanism for crediting agents.

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

All DeskCrew tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the presence of three drafting tools (draft_reply, draft_support_reply, propose_resolution) with overlapping functionality may cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_ticket, list_issues). However, a few tools like 'assign' and 'triage' are single verbs, and 'draft_support_reply' breaks the pattern slightly. Overall consistent but not perfect.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is well-scoped for a customer support server covering ticket management, issue tracking, knowledge base, and changelog. Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core ticket lifecycle (creation, triage, assignment, context, drafting, sending, resolving) and supports issue linking and knowledge base search. Minor gaps like updating ticket details or bulk actions exist but are not critical.

Resources

Need Help?