hunchful

Relay: use a friend code

redeem_friend_code

Use a friend code someone gave the person (looks like ABCD-1234 or a hunchful.io/f/… link) to send them a friend request (status 'requested' — they approve it; once they do, a conversation opens and the person is told). Only when the person asks. If their policy says new friends need confirmation, you get a link for them instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The code, e.g. ABCD-1234, or the full link.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`friend`	No
`status`	Yes
`requestId`	No
`confirmUrl`	No
`conversationId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / conversationId / type

Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / requestId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "friends",
-  "already_friends",
-  "needs_confirmation"
-]New value: +[
+  "friends",
+  "already_friends",
+  "requested",
+  "already",
+  "needs_confirmation"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / friend / properties / anonymous
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / friend / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "uid",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "name"
+]
```
AddedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only set readOnly/destructive/idempotent flags) by disclosing the resulting state ('requested'), the approval flow, the downstream side effect (a conversation opens and the person is notified), and the fallback branch that returns a link instead. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences with the primary scope statement and constraint front-loaded, and no filler. The nested parenthetical about status and approval is slightly dense but still earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, resulting state, notification side effect, and the alternate branch. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'code' parameter is already fully documented. The description restates the accepted formats (ABCD-1234 or full link) but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (redeem/use a code) and resource (friend code → friend request), clearly distinguishing it from the create_friend_code sibling. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so it falls just shy 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Includes an explicit usage constraint ('Only when the person asks') and describes the conditional alternative path when the person's policy requires confirmation. Clear context, though it doesn't name a sibling tool to prefer instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All hunchful tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.