Append a message to an existing intro thread you're a party to. The other party gets an email notification linking back to the thread. Use this to follow up after request_intro or to keep a conversation moving. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Message body (1–4000 chars). | |
| intro_id | Yes | Intro UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description discloses the notification effect and API key requirement, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error modes.
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 concise sentences, each earning its place: action, effect, usage context. No filler 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?
Sufficient for a simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema. Covers purpose, effect, usage, and auth. Missing error behavior or return value info, but not critical.
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% for both parameters (body and intro_id). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline.
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 ('append a message') and the resource ('existing intro thread'), and distinguishes from siblings like request_intro and read_intro_thread by specifying it's for follow-up.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to follow up after request_intro or to keep a conversation moving,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
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 targets a distinct action on a specific resource (commitments, intros, projects, watches) with no overlap. For example, list_projects vs search_projects differ by filtering, and list_watches vs watch_project are clearly separate.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., acknowledge_commitment, list_projects, update_watch. The verbs are imperative and the nouns clearly indicate the resource.
14 tools cover the core interactions of a fundraising platform—project discovery, pipeline management, intros, and commitments—without being bloated or insufficient.
The tool set covers the investor and founder journey well, but lacks project creation/update tools for founders, which is a minor gap given the server's focus on round interactions.