List of your startups on BetaFinds (slug, name, status). Updates can only be published for startups with APPROVED status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / stageAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / waitlistCountAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing the fields, so it does not significantly enhance transparency beyond the 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?
Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first states the purpose, and the second adds a relevant constraint. Every sentence earns its place.
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 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and adds context about the status field, which is sufficient for the 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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not repeat schema information.
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 lists the user's startups and specifies the fields returned (slug, name, status). It is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_startup or update_startup.
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 adds context that updates require APPROVED status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a use case for checking status before publishing, but lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.