Fetch a Pinterest user’s own pins with titles, descriptions, images, boards, and pinners from public profile pages. Provide a username to retrieve a structured page of their pins.
Get a Pinterest user's own pins. Returns a page of a Pinterest user's own pins: title, description, image, board, and pinner for each. Public data sourced from Pinterest's own profile pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Pinterest username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns a page of pins, lists the output fields, and notes that data is public from profile pages. With no annotations, it carries the transparency burden, but it omits details like pagination control, rate limits, or error behavior, which would be valuable.
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 sentences with no fluff: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates the return fields, the third provides data source context. Every sentence adds value and the description is front-loaded.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete, but it lacks information on how pagination works (e.g., next-page token) and does not differentiate from sibling Pinterest tools. Since no output schema exists, the description could have compensated with more return structure details.
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 fully describes the only parameter (username) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional semantic nuance. The baseline of 3 applies since the parameter is adequately documented by the schema itself.
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 'Get a Pinterest user's own pins' with a specific verb and resource, and it enumerates the returned fields (title, description, image, board, pinner). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pinterest_user or pinterest_user_boards by emphasizing 'own pins,' though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not mention when to choose this over pinterest_user, pinterest_user_boards, or pinterest_pin, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.