get_pinterest_boardsFetch Pinterest boards for a given profile to select a destination for scheduling and publishing posts. Shows available boards to target content distribution.
Pinterest boards available to a profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description correctly does not contradict them. It adds scoping context ('available to a profile'), but no behavioral details about authentication, default behavior, or response characteristics. The description carries some value but stays close to what the annotations imply.
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 a single compact phrase with no filler words, which is front-loaded and to the point. It is adequately concise, though the brief structure leaves out necessary detail that other dimensions penalize.
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 very minimal description and parameter coverage, the overall picture is incomplete: the 'profile' parameter is unexplained, and there is no usage context or link to other tools. Though an output schema exists, the description fails to fill in basic operational context, leaving the agent guessing on how to invoke or select the tool.
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 no property descriptions (0% coverage) and the description only mentions 'a profile' without defining what format it expects (e.g., ID, handle) or how it affects results. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the argument, especially when the parameter is optional but behaviorally meaningful.
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 identifies the resource as Pinterest boards and scopes them to a profile, which is clear and specific. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title to infer the 'list' action, but that is a minor omission. Among siblings like get_facebook_pages and get_linkedin_pages, the platform is highlighted, but the description doesn't explicitly distinguish it beyond the resource name.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what conditions make it appropriate. The description merely states a fact about Pinterest boards without explaining selection criteria, prerequisites, or fallback behavior. The agent is left to infer from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.