pinterest_profile_boards_listList public boards for a Pinterest profile. Accepts a handle. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | No | When true, returns a smaller response with fewer fields. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor returned by a previous response. | |
| handle | Yes | Pinterest username whose boards should be listed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds valuable context: it returns a list and explains that pagination is handled via a cursor. It also clarifies the 'public' scope of boards, which are behavioral traits not covered by 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 extremely concise, using three short fragments: the main purpose, the input (handle), and the return behavior with pagination. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the key input, and pagination behavior. It omits details like error handling or empty results, but these are not critical for a basic read-only listing tool. The description is adequately complete for its 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds only a brief note about cursor usage for pagination, which is already implied by the schema. It provides minimal additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.
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 'List public boards for a Pinterest profile' with a specific resource and scope. It explicitly mentions 'boards' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinterest_board_pins_list. The purpose is unambiguous and informative.
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 usage from the name and context (list boards for a profile) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention which sibling tools to consider or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.