pitchiq-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool re-checks availability, sends confirmation email, and pushes to Google Calendar when connected. It also mentions the outcome-pricing and x402-payable nature. This is above average transparency, though it does not detail error handling or rate limits.

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 very concise: two sentences covering the core action and style, plus two short sentences for prerequisites and payment. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main action, side effects, payment model, prerequisite, and auth info. It does not explain return values (acceptable without output schema) and could mention error handling, but overall is fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter detail beyond the schema; it mentions host_handle in the context of discover_search_podcasts and notes attendee_notes as pitch/context. No significant new semantics are provided.

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 verb 'Book' and the resource 'guest slot on a PitchIQ host's PUBLIC booking calendar', with a Calendly-style analogy. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying booking functionality, while siblings focus on commerce or search.

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 explicitly mentions to 'Find bookable hosts via discover_search_podcasts', providing a clear prerequisite. It also notes the outcome-pricing and payment method, giving context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative booking tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation (no mention of mutation). It adds context about the return structure and ordering, but doesn't explicitly state idempotency or pagination. However, for a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence describes what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what is returned, when to use it, and a prerequisite. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., 'array of objects'), but it's sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing parameter-specific since none exist.

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 specifies a clear verb (Return), resource (workspace brain index), and output details (title, slug, one-line summary, hierarchy order). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pitchiq_v1_brain_search by recommending calling this before searching.

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?

Explicitly advises calling at 'START of a session' with rationale ('to learn what the workspace already knows before searching, asking the user, or creating anything'). Also mentions a precondition ('Requires an active workspace').

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns specific types of connections for each entity type (e.g., forward links, backlinks, CRM mentions) and requires an active workspace. It implies read-only behavior by describing traversal and returns, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention rate limits or auth needs. Given the context, this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear general statement, then provides specific details for each entity type in a bullet-like list (without actual bullets, but with clear line breaks), and ends with a general usage note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format for each entity type. It covers both parameters adequately and mentions important context (active workspace required). For a tool with two parameters and clear entity logic, the description is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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% for the two parameters, so the schema already provides basic descriptions. The description adds significant value by explaining what happens for each enum value of entity_type, detailing the specific information returned for 'wiki_page', 'contact', and 'deal'. This goes beyond the schema's enum listing and helps the agent understand the behavioral impact of parameter choices.

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: traversing the workspace knowledge graph from a specific entity. It provides specific details for each entity type (wiki_page, contact, deal), distinguishing this tool from siblings like pitchiq_v1_brain_search which likely performs different search operations.

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 includes explicit usage context: 'Use this to understand relationships and discover connected information across the workspace.' It also specifies the prerequisite 'Requires an active workspace' and details what each entity type returns, helping the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains semantic matching and read behavior, but lacks information on rate limits, error handling, or pagination. However, this is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, mechanism, and usage guidance. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how it works, what it returns, and when to use. Lacks details on sorting, filtering, or error states, but these are not critical for a search tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 50% (only query has a description). The description repeats the query description without adding new meaning, and provides no additional guidance for the limit parameter (e.g., default, effect on results). Does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 it performs semantic search across the active workspace's wiki, contrasts with pitchiq_v1_wiki_search_pages, and specifies returned fields (title, slug, summary). Verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this tool when exact wording is unknown and mentions the requirement for an active workspace. Provides clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description reveals it is a read-only operation ('x402-payable (read class)') and lists returned data (USD price, pricing class, network, accepts block). It does not elaborate on idempotency or side effects but is adequately transparent.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The key purpose and return value are front-loaded, making efficient use of space.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema). It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and what it returns. Minor omissions like prerequisites or error handling keep it from a 5.

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 sole parameter 'tool_name' is well-described in the schema, and the description adds practical guidance (call tools/list, example value). This enriches understanding beyond the schema, warranting a score above baseline.

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 returns a firm x402 price and payment requirements for Commerce tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like booking or search tools. It uses specific verbs 'Get' and 'price/payment requirements'.

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 explicitly advises using this tool BEFORE committing to a Commerce tool for budgeting purposes, providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields and cost model, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences cover all essential information: function, criteria, return fields, and cost/auth. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Ideal conciseness.

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 search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and output. However, it omits details like default sorting, pagination behavior, and explanation of the 'tier' parameter, which would enhance completeness.

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 86%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely paraphrases the filter criteria. It does not explain the 'tier' enum or the 'limit' behavior beyond what schema provides.

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 action 'Search' and the resource 'global Twitch/YouTube creator index', with specific criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on creators rather than curators or podcasts, and ties the use case to game/product coverage.

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 provides context ('for an agent seeking creators to cover a game/product') and mentions the payability model, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against alternatives like search_curators or search_podcasts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses payment requirement (x402-payable) and return fields, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and filters, second lists returns and payment info. No fluff, front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers main search dimensions and returns. But it lacks details on result ordering, pagination, or whether the index is exhaustive. This is acceptable but leaves gaps.

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 80%, so the description doesn't need to fully compensate. It groups parameters by search dimensions ('name, tag, language, and audience size'), which adds context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema (default/max/min) already provides.

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 it searches a global Steam-curator index with specific filters (name, tag, language, audience size) and returns key fields. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type (curators vs. creators/podcasts).

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?

Gives explicit use case ('for an agent marketing a game/product into a niche') and payment details ('x402-payable; no PAT required'), but does not compare to sibling search tools like search_creators or search_podcasts, nor say when not to use.

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

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

The description discloses the data source (ListenNotes-indexed), the returned fields (title, host, listener tier, etc.), and the filtering options. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the transparency burden and does so adequately, though it omits details like pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core action and data source. The second lists return fields and provides a clear use case. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 search tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its primary use. It lacks mention of sorting, pagination, or error handling, but this is acceptable given the simplicity. The differentiation from sibling tools is implicit.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, merely repeating 'free-text search term' for query and 'varies by source' for category. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 action ('Search PitchIQ's podcast directory') and the resource ('podcasts'), with no ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discover_search_creators' by specifying the target is podcasts.

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 includes a usage scenario ('Useful for finding podcasts an agent should pitch the user onto'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No guidance on required parameters or prerequisites is provided.

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