Add a project to your pipeline (or update its stage). Stages: interested, diligence, intro_requested, passed, invested. Optional notes are appended to the watch's note log. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Project slug | |
| notes | No | Optional note to append (max 4000 chars) | |
| stage | No | interested |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must tell the agent about side effects. It mentions note appending and stage setting, but does not disclose whether updates overwrite or merge, or if the operation is idempotent.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core action, enumeration, and a caveat (API key). No wasted 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., what is returned after adding/updating). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response format.
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?
The description adds context to the schema: it lists all stages, clarifies that notes are appended to a log, and implies default stage. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates with valuable additions.
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 tool's purpose: 'Add a project to your pipeline (or update its stage)', with explicit enumeration of valid stages. This differentiates it from siblings like get_project and list_watches, though not explicitly from update_watch.
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 provides context for usage (addition or update of pipeline projects) and a prerequisite (API key), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like update_watch.
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.