Submit your own business idea to the idea board with fields for why now, cost, payer, and first step so it can be captured and evaluated.
Put an idea of your own on the idea board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idea | Yes | ||
| why_now | No | ||
| how_much | No | ||
| who_pays | No | ||
| first_step | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write ('Put an idea'), but says nothing about persistence, whether the idea can later be removed (kill_idea exists), whether fields are editable, or any auth/rate constraints — critical gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a five-parameter tool.
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?
With five parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the pitch-style field set and what creating an idea yields. It explains neither, leaving the agent to guess at the semantic intent of four of the five fields.
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 coverage is 0% and the parameters use non-obvious pitch-template names (why_now, how_much, who_pays, first_step) that the description never mentions. Only the required 'idea' field is loosely reflected in the wording; the four optional fields are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 specific verb and resource ('Put an idea... on the idea board') that an agent can distinguish from list_ideas and kill_idea by name alone. The phrase 'of your own' signals authorship, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from sibling names (list_ideas, kill_idea) that this is the creation path, and gets no hint about whether check_channels or judge_video should precede it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.