Submit a short, anonymous message telling the operator which data tool you would pay for, so demand can be gauged without publishing input or sending a reply.
FREE. Tell the operator which data tool you would pay for (one short text, 10 to 300 characters, no personal data). Write-only: nothing is published and no reply is sent. Limited to 3 per day per client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Which data tool would you pay for, and roughly what for? |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the write-only semantics, that nothing is published and no reply is returned, and the 3-per-day rate limit. It also states a privacy constraint (no personal data) that is not in the schema. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.
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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: incentive, constraint, and write semantics. The most decision-relevant token ('FREE') is first.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, write-only tool, the description covers the side effects (nothing published, no reply), the size limit, the privacy rule, and the rate cap. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the meaningful 'no personal data' restriction and restates the 10-300 character bound as a content constraint rather than just a type limit. It does not add syntax examples or formatting guidance beyond that.
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 concrete verb and object ('tell the operator which data tool you would pay for'), which is unmistakably different from every sibling tool that fetches data. An agent can tell this is a feedback/request channel rather than a data lookup without opening the schema.
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?
'FREE' front-loads the incentive and 'Write-only: nothing is published and no reply is sent' tells the agent what to expect from the call. It also bounds usage ('one short text', 'Limited to 3 per day per client'), though it never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.