Fetch a BetaList startup by slug or URL to get its name, tagline, description, makers, topics, launch date, screenshots, and similar startups.
Get one startup from BetaList by slug or URL: name, tagline, description, makers, topics, launch date, screenshots and similar startups. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| startup | Yes | Startup slug or BetaList URL. e.g. iconscove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned data fields and a flat 5-point cost per successful run, but it says nothing about failure behavior, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the slug/URL is invalid.
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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, input format, returned fields, and cost. There is no filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the source, input, returned fields, and cost. It could be stronger by mentioning expected failure cases or pointing to the search sibling when only a name is known.
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 single parameter is already well documented in the schema with an example. The description reinforces that the parameter accepts a slug or URL, but it adds no format details or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: get one startup from BetaList by slug or URL. It also enumerates the returned fields, making it clear this is a single-startup detail lookup rather than a search or listing tool.
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 phrase 'by slug or URL' implies the tool is for fetching a known startup, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like run_betalist_startups_search or run_betalist_startups_latest. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.