Build prefilled HeyClaude submit and review URLs for a validated PR-first submission draft without making write calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Validated submission field values to encode into submit and review URLs. | |
| includePrBody | No | Include a pre-filled PR body in the returned URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| policy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's note about 'without making write calls' adds minimal extra value. No contradictions. The description is accurate but doesn't enrich behavioral insight beyond annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word is necessary; no redundant information.
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 low parameter count, complete schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and usage. It addresses the validated draft condition and side-effect-free nature, making it complete for an AI agent.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'fields' parameter (encoding values into URLs) and 'includePrBody' (prefilled PR body). This goes beyond the schema's basic type and constraints.
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 builds prefilled URLs for submission and review, specifying the key action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling submission tools by emphasizing URL generation without write calls.
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 when to use (for validated PR-first drafts, without making write calls) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. It provides good context but could be more direct about exclusions.
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 distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.
