List business ideas from followed videos and your own additions, showing who pays, how much, a first step, and supporting video count; include killed ideas only when asked.
The idea board: every idea worthwatch has found in the videos or you added, with who pays, how much, a first step and how many videos back it. Killed ideas only when asked for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_killed | No |
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 burden and does well by disclosing the returned idea fields and the default exclusion of killed ideas. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, ordering, or pagination, but for a listing tool it provides substantial useful context.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately establishes the resource and then summarizes contents and filtering. There is no wasted text.
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 listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned idea contents and the killed-idea filter. It omits minor details like ordering or pagination, but is sufficiently complete 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 0%, so the description must explain the only parameter. The phrase "Killed ideas only when asked for" directly clarifies the include_killed behavior and implies the default exclusion, though it does not name the parameter explicitly.
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 specific resource as the idea board and scopes it to ideas found in videos or added by the user. It also lists the core idea metadata and notes that killed ideas are excluded by default, which distinguishes it from add_idea and kill_idea without naming those siblings directly.
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?
It gives a clear condition for including killed ideas: only when asked for. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like todays_digest, add_idea, or kill_idea, so usage is mostly implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.