score_fitJudge a KOL's niche, tone, and price band against a campaign, then decide if outreach is worth sending.
Ask Jev System One to judge niche, tone, price band, and whether outreach is worth sending. A missing JEV_API_KEY returns setup guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kolBio | Yes | KOL bio | |
| kolHandle | Yes | KOL handle, for example @maya.glow | |
| campaignDescription | Yes | Campaign or product description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully notes that a missing JEV_API_KEY returns setup guidance, but it does not disclose the success output format, whether the operation is read-only, or other failure modes. Some context is added, but significant behavioral gaps remain.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important API-key edge case is included as a compact second sentence.
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 three-parameter scoring tool, this is fairly complete: it states what the tool judges, implies the output concept, and flags a key environment dependency. It does not detail the return payload, but no output schema exists and the description still gives enough context for correct invocation.
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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about evaluation dimensions (niche, tone, price band) but does not map them to specific parameters or add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's action: ask Jev System One to judge niche, tone, price band, and outreach-worthiness. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_kols and draft_email, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description implies this tool is used when a fit judgment is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like search_kols or draft_email, nor does it explain whether it should precede or follow those tools. Usage context is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.