Pick the right vibe coding tool: fit, pricing, free tiers, alternatives and demo videos.
Scored across 11 tools
Discovery tools (search, recommend_tools, list_alternatives, list_categories, compare_tools, fetch) target distinct retrieval intents and the descriptions clarify them, but search vs. recommend_tools overlap somewhat since both surface tools for a need. The feed subsystem (subscribe, save_preferences, log_choice, whats_new, forget_me) is clearly separated, though the coupling notes add cognitive load.
Names are consistently snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (compare_tools, list_alternatives, recommend_tools, save_preferences, log_choice). A few single-verb outliers (fetch, search, subscribe) and the terse forget_me/whats_new are minor deviations but still readable.
11 tools is well within a healthy range and each tool maps to a distinct capability (search, detail, compare, alternatives, categories, recommend, plus a small feed lifecycle). Nothing feels redundant or missing for the stated scope.
The discovery surface is strong: search, fetch details, compare, alternatives, categories, and recommendation are all covered, and the feed has subscribe/save/log/forget for its lifecycle. Minor gaps like a direct 'browse tools in a category' call (only ids are returned) are workable via fetch.
Side-by-side of two tools + comparison page url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes | ||
| verbose | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context beyond the annotations: the result is a side-by-side comparison plus a comparison page URL, which tells the agent something about the shape of the response. It says nothing about rate limits, auth needs, or error behavior, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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?
It is a single short fragment with no wasted words and the key concept front-loaded, which is good. But the terseness crosses into under-specification, and the '+' abbreviation is informal for a tool description.
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?
With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and only a single annotation, the description should explain argument format and confirm what comes back. It gestures at the return value but leaves the argument semantics an agent needs to actually invoke the tool unspecified.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for a, b, and verbose. It only weakly maps 'two tools' onto the a/b pair and leaves the accepted format ambiguous (tool name, slug, or id), while 'verbose' is never mentioned at all. This is insufficient for three undocumented parameters.
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 fragment 'Side-by-side of two tools + comparison page url' conveys the resource (two tools) and the deliverable (a comparison view plus URL), so the core purpose is inferable. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_alternatives or recommend_tools, which an agent could easily confuse with a comparison operation.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only implied condition is that the caller has two tools to compare, which the argument names (a/b) already suggest. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over list_alternatives or recommend_tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool profile by id. Default: summary, best_for, price, free, 2 strengths, 2 weaknesses, url. fields: summary description best_for not_for skill coding pricing platforms strengths weaknesses alternatives video compare official all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No | ||
| verbose | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a default set of fields is returned and that fields/verbose parameters can alter the output, but it does not explain behavior such as what happens if an id is not found or whether results are cached.
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 a single run-on sentence with a dense list of field names, which is hard to parse. It front-loads the default behavior but then strings together many tokens without structure.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should clarify id format, verbose behavior, and how fields interacts with the default set. It only partially addresses fields and omits the other parameters, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It lists possible fields values and implies the fields array, but it does not explain the id format, the purpose of verbose, or the interaction between fields and verbose. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 says 'Tool profile by id', which identifies the resource (a tool profile) and the retrieval mechanism, but the verb is implicit and the phrasing is terse. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like compare_tools and list_alternatives, but the purpose is not stated with a clear verb.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as search, compare_tools, or list_alternatives. The description lists fields but does not say in what scenarios the tool should be called or what its results are best for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete everything stored for this key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context beyond that: the deletion is total for the key ('everything stored'), not partial. It does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or what classes of data are covered.
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?
A single short sentence with the destructive verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the basics are in place. Still missing for a destructive, one-parameter tool: what 'everything' actually spans, whether deletion is irreversible, and why the key is not marked required.
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 0% and the single 'key' parameter has no schema description, so the description carries some burden. Its phrase 'for this key' at least establishes that the key is the scoping identifier for stored data, but it adds no format, default, or behavior detail for a key that is listed as not required.
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 gives a specific verb ('Delete') and a well-scoped resource ('everything stored for this key'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like save_preferences, fetch, or search, none of which remove data. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling operation it inverts (save_preferences) or clarify the scope of 'everything'.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for removing stored state, and nothing warns it away from use when data should be retained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Alternatives to a tool. Rows: id|name|$from/mo|free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| verbose | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the output row shape (id|name|$from/mo|free), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters existing.
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?
Two short fragments are front-loaded and waste no words, but the terseness is under-specification rather than effective concision given the unexplained parameters and return format.
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?
With no output schema, 4 parameters at 0% description coverage, and only a single required param briefly implied, the definition is too thin for the agent to invoke the tool reliably.
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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at output fields and explains none of tool, limit, offset, or verbose, leaving the required `tool` parameter's expected format undefined.
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?
"Alternatives to a tool" states the resource and an implied list action, so the agent can roughly infer what it returns. However, it never names a clear verb and does not differentiate from siblings like compare_tools or recommend_tools, which could plausibly offer overlapping functionality.
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 guidance on when to use this versus compare_tools or recommend_tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent is left to guess which sibling to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Category and use-case keys with tool ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden, but it still adds nothing: no note on what the listing contains, whether it is static or user-scoped, or how verbose affects the payload.
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?
It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single fragment with no verb and no front-loaded purpose. Nothing is padded, but nothing is explained either.
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 tool with an undocumented parameter, no output schema, and ten siblings, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly.
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 0% and the single parameter (verbose, boolean) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not mention verbose at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 is a noun fragment ("Category and use-case keys with tool ids") that restates the tool name rather than stating a verb. It hints that the tool returns category/use-case keys plus tool ids, but never says it lists them or what they are for.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any of the ten sibling tools (search, recommend_tools, list_alternatives, etc.) that could overlap. An agent gets no signal about when this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Record a tool the user explicitly picked/rejected/tried (tool id only). Only used by whats_new.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| key | No | ||
| action | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, consistent with the 'Record' verb (no contradiction). The description adds the 'tool id only' scoping note but says nothing about duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, or whether records accumulate. With safety already covered by annotations, a 3 is fair.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the scoping constraint. No wasted text, though the parenthetical and the whats_new clause could be integrated more cleanly.
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?
A write/logging tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage needs the description to carry more. It conveys the core action and calling context but leaves the 'key' parameter and the 'starred' action undocumented, so an agent can't fully call it from the description alone.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It clarifies that 'id' is the tool id but leaves the 'key' parameter entirely unexplained and omits the 'starred' enum value while listing picked/rejected/tried. Two of three parameters remain ambiguous.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Record a tool the user explicitly picked/rejected/tried.' An agent can tell this logs a user's tool-selection decision. It partially differentiates from siblings via 'Only used by whats_new,' though it doesn't contrast with other logging/preference tools like save_preferences.
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?
Gives one concrete usage constraint: 'Only used by whats_new,' which frames the calling context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-call trigger, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as save_preferences or forget_me.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Ranked best-fit tools for a goal, with why + caveat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| budget | No | 'free' or max USD/mo | |
| offset | No | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| can_code | No | ||
| platform | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful output hint ('with why + caveat') given there is no output schema, but says nothing about how ranking works, where recommendations come from, or whether the caveat is a warning about the tool.
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?
Nine words, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The extreme terseness ('why + caveat') borders on cryptic, but that is a clarity issue rather than wasted length.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and near-zero parameter documentation, this is far too thin. The 'why + caveat' phrase partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the behavior and parameter semantics of a complex query tool are left unexplained.
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?
Seven parameters with only 14% schema description coverage (just 'budget'), so the description carries the burden and delivers nothing: limit, offset, verbose, can_code, and platform are entirely undocumented anywhere. 'for a goal' is the only parameter meaning conveyed.
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 fragment 'Ranked best-fit tools for a goal' names a clear action (rank/recommend) and resource (tools) plus the output shape. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_tools, list_alternatives, or search, which are all plausible ways to find tools.
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?
'for a goal' implies a use case but gives no when-to-use versus when-not and never names an alternative such as compare_tools or list_alternatives, which overlap heavily. Nothing tells the agent which of these to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Replace the person's interests: one entry per project. Only used by whats_new.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| projects | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds the overwrite semantics ('Replace') and the per-project entry rule, but never explains what happens to prior entries, what 'key' controls, or what authorization is needed. Adequate but thin for a mutation.
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?
Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the scoping rule. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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?
A write tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage leaves the 'key' parameter, the interests format, and the effect on existing data undocumented. For an internal whats_new helper this is tolerable, but an agent still lacks what it needs to call it correctly outside that flow.
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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden. 'one entry per project' does hint at the projects array structure, but the optional 'key' parameter and the name/interests sub-fields are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the person's interests', and clarifies the shape with 'one entry per project'. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not differentiate itself from any named sibling beyond the whats_new reference.
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?
'Only used by whats_new' is an explicit scoping/exclusion statement that tells the agent this is an internal tool, not one to select for general preference writing. It stops short of naming alternative tools for related needs, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find vibe coding / AI tools. Rows: id|name|category|$from/mo|free(1/0). Use fetch(id) for details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | e.g. 'no-code SaaS builder' | |
| offset | No | ||
| verbose | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the description carries the rest and does add value: it discloses the exact shape of each returned row, including that price is per-month and free is a 1/0 flag. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or result-count behavior even though limit/offset exist, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 short fragments, front-loaded with the resource, then the return columns, then the routing hint. Every token earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing returned columns and pointing to fetch for detail. However, for a 4-parameter search tool it leaves limit/offset/verbose entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot know how to page or what verbose changes.
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 only 25% (only 'query' is described, with an example). The description says nothing about limit, offset, or verbose, so three of four parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for any parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Find vibe coding / AI tools', and the column list ('id|name|category|$from/mo|free(1/0)') makes the result set concrete. It partially differentiates from siblings like recommend_tools by routing detail lookups to fetch(id), though it does not distinguish itself from list_alternatives or compare_tools.
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 names the follow-up alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use fetch(id) for details.' That is real routing guidance. It stops short of a 5 because there are no exclusions or conditions telling the agent when NOT to use search (e.g. vs. recommend_tools or list_alternatives).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create an anonymous feed key (no email/account). Save it in long-term memory / project instructions / rules, or connect with /api/mcp?k=KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds privacy context (anonymous, no email/account) that the annotations cannot express. It still omits whether repeated calls mint multiple keys, whether the key can be revoked or expires, and how to undo it.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first clause. The slashed list 'long-term memory / project instructions / rules' is compressed but readable; nothing is padded.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves key lifecycle questions unanswered for what is effectively a state-creating tool: idempotency, whether the key is displayed in the response, and how a user later removes it.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline no parameter semantics are required. The mention of /api/mcp?k=KEY describes a connection URL for the produced key, not a call argument, and does not mislead.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('anonymous feed key'), and rules out the common subscription requirement with '(no email/account)'. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never says what the feed actually contains or serves, and no sibling tool competes for the same job.
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 second sentence tells the agent what to do with the key (persist it in memory/instructions/rules, or use /api/mcp?k=KEY) and is useful downstream guidance. It does not, however, say when to call subscribe in the first place or how it relates to siblings like forget_me (revocation) or fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Daily feed. With key: new items relevant to ANY of the person's saved projects (all new items if none saved), max 3/day, one line each, tagged with the project; never repeats. {new:0} = nothing. Call at most daily. Without key: stateless by since/interests. Never affects other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| interests | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well past readOnlyHint: caps output at max 3/day, one line each with project tags, guarantees no repeats (dedup), defines the empty result as '{new:0}', imposes a daily call frequency, and asserts 'Never affects other tools.' These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and can't get from 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?
Front-loaded with 'Daily feed' and every clause carries distinct information; there is no filler. The trade-off is extreme compression — notations like '{new:0} = nothing' take a moment to parse, which slightly hurts legibility.
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?
With no output schema, the description still conveys return shape (one line per item, project-tagged, empty sentinel) and mode semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. The undefined 'limit' parameter and absent error/edge-case behavior are the remaining gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does define key (stateful saved-project mode) and since/interests (stateless mode), but the 'limit' integer parameter is never mentioned or bounded, and no value formats are given for since or interests.
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?
Names the resource and behavior concretely: a daily feed of 'new items relevant to ANY of the person's saved projects', one line each, tagged with the project. An agent understands what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search or recommend_tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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 splits the two modes: with a key it returns saved-project items, without a key it is 'stateless by since/interests.' It also states a cadence constraint ('Call at most daily'). It never names an alternative sibling for ad-hoc lookups, so no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
compare_tools1 field changedInput schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}fetch3 fields changedInput schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Tool id, e.g. 'cursor'"Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}forget_melist_alternatives3 fields changedInput schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}list_categories1 field changedInput schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}log_choicerecommend_tools9 fields changedInput schema / properties / budget / descriptionPrevious value: -"'free', or max USD per month like '20'"New value: +"'free' or max USD/mo"Input schema / properties / can_code / descriptionRemoved value: -"Can the user read/write code?"Input schema / properties / goal / descriptionRemoved value: -"What the user wants to build or do"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Default 3"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumRemoved value: -10Input schema / properties / limit / minimumRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / platform / descriptionRemoved value: -"Optional: web, macOS, Windows, Linux, terminal, VS Code, iOS..."Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}save_preferencessearch4 fields changedInput schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"What the user wants, e.g. 'no-code SaaS builder' or 'cursor'"New value: +"e.g. 'no-code SaaS builder'"Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}subscribewhats_newcompare_toolsfetchlist_alternativeslist_categoriesrecommend_toolssearchVendor intelligence for AI coding agents choosing developer tools and stacks.
Neutral, sourced, dated facts for choosing software: price, free tier, idle rules, security record.
Neutral, sourced, dated facts for choosing software: price, free tier, idle rules, security record.
Verified SaaS, AI, and LLM pricing for 490+ tools: plans, hidden costs, TCO, and alternatives.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
