Save hours every week. This xhs avoid 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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'No setup, works in any LLM chatbot' hints that this returns prompt/playbook text rather than performing analysis, but the description never states what the agent gets back, whether the optional query is consumed or ignored, or what domain limits apply.
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?
Only three short sentences, but the leading 'Save hours every week' is unearned marketing and 'xhs avoid kit toolkit' is redundant name repetition. The one substantive claim (prompt playbook for restaurant/brand growth) appears last and is under-specified rather than 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?
No annotations, no output schema, and a vague description leave too much undeclared for a tool whose siblings differ only by channel. The content domain it names (restaurant/brand growth) also reads as inconsistent with the 'avoid kit' naming, so an agent cannot confidently infer either its function or its outputs.
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 100% for the single optional 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning about how the query scopes the output, so the default baseline of 3 applies.
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 restates the name ('this xhs avoid kit toolkit') and then pivots to 'a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth,' which does not explain what the tool actually does. The 'avoid' family name implies platform-rules/forbidden-content avoidance, but the text never confirms that, and it gives an agent no way to distinguish it from xhs-adcopy-kit, xhs-checklist-kit, or forbidden-word-check.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With dozens of near-identical xhs-*-kit siblings and other 'avoid' kits (dy-avoid-kit, gzh-avoid-kit, sph-avoid-kit, zh-avoid-kit), the absence of routing guidance leaves selection to guesswork.
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.