pinterest_search_pins_listSearch public Pinterest pins by keyword. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | No | When true, returns a smaller response with fewer fields. | |
| query | Yes | Search query text for Pinterest pins. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor returned by a previous response. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already establish a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond this: it returns a list and explicitly mentions pagination via a cursor. It also specifies 'public' content scope. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?
The description is two terse sentences with zero filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the pagination hint is provided in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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 tool is a simple search operation with three parameters, all thoroughly described in the schema. The description provides the return type (list) and pagination guidance, and the annotations confirm safety. It does not describe response fields or limits, but for a search tool with an open-world hint, this is sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of distinction from other platform search tools, but the Pinterest-specific naming handles that.
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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description's mention of 'use cursor when paginated' reinforces the cursor parameter but adds no new meaning. The trim parameter is not addressed in the description, but since the schema covers it, the description does not need to repeat it. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema 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), the resource (public Pinterest pins), and the method (by keyword). It also indicates the return type (a list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinterest_board_pins_list (which lists pins within a specific board) and pinterest_pin_get (which fetches a single pin). The scope is 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?
The description conveys the primary use case: keyword-based search for public Pinterest pins. It implies that this tool is for finding pins via textual queries, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for board-specific listings). The clear keyword focus and 'public' qualifier provide adequate context, though explicit exclusions would elevate the score.
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.