Save hours every week. This speech kit toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth. No setup, works in any LLM chatbot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional user query to scope the analysis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it mostly delivers marketing copy. "No setup, works in any LLM chatbot" is a vague hint that the output is a portable prompt, but there is no statement of what is returned, whether the call is read-only, or how the optional query alters output. The meaning of "restaurant/brand growth" scoping is left unexplained.
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 short sentences, but the lead line "Save hours every week" is pure sales framing that consumes the front-loaded position with zero task-relevant information. The one substantive detail (prompt/playbook) arrives after the hype.
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 tool whose only distinguishing feature versus dozens of near-identical speech-kit siblings is its platform and output format, the description omits the platform entirely, omits the output shape, and has no annotations or output schema to compensate. An agent could not confidently choose or invoke it from this text.
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% with a single optional "query" parameter documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about how a query scopes the kit or what happens when it is omitted.
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?
"Speech kit toolkit" largely restates the name, and the only concrete claim — "prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth" — never says whether this produces a Douyin 口播/speech script, a template, or advice. It gives no way to tell it apart from the many sibling speech kits (gzh-speech-kit, sph-speech-kit, xhs-speech-kit, zh-speech-kit), which appear to differ only by platform.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternative. The "restaurant/brand growth" phrase hints at a domain but an agent cannot infer from this when to pick dy-speech-kit over gzh-speech-kit or dy-talk-kit.
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.