Log recent freelance wins with amounts, pitch variants, and reasons to track which outreach approaches lead to paid work.
Recent wins with amounts, pitch variant, and reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to meet it. It never states that this is a read-only retrieval (the word 'journal' could be misread as a logging/write action), nor does it mention time window, result caps, or ordering beyond the vague word 'Recent'. Only the content of the returned fields is conveyed.
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 nine-word fragment with no filler and the key information ('recent wins') front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument tool, though the missing verb makes it feel like a label rather than an instruction.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters the input side is trivial. What remains missing is the read-vs-write disambiguation against log_win_reason/record_won_amount and any notion of the 'recent' window, which for a listing tool is the main open question.
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 schema has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is nothing extra to document. The description appropriately spends its words on output content instead of nonexistent inputs.
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 phrase names a resource (recent wins) and the fields it carries (amounts, pitch variant, reasons), so an agent can guess it is a read/listing tool. But there is no verb at all, and the name/description does not distinguish it from siblings like log_win_reason or record_won_amount, which are the write-side counterparts. Purpose is implied rather than stated.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With siblings named log_win_reason and record_won_amount sitting right next to it, some routing guidance (this reads past wins vs. those record new ones) would be essential. The agent must infer the distinction entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.