File a DMCA takedown notice. Always free, no account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes | ||
| complainant_name | Yes | ||
| complainant_contact | Yes | ||
| infringing_block_id | Yes | ||
| similarity_evidence | No | ||
| accuracy_declaration | Yes | ||
| original_content_url | Yes | ||
| good_faith_declaration | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions it's free and requires no account, but fails to disclose legal consequences, destructive nature (content removal), required declarations, or authentication needs. Without annotations, the agent lacks crucial behavioral context.
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 concise (2 sentences) but under-specified. Key information is missing, making it ineffective despite its brevity.
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 tool's complexity (legal action, 8 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, process details, and important warnings about legal implications.
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 description adds no parameter information. For an 8-parameter tool, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema.
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 ('File a DMCA takedown notice') and the specific resource (takedown notice). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'submit_dmca_counter_notice' which handles the opposite action.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The sibling 'submit_dmca_counter_notice' is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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 or resource. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.
