Fetch user reviews for a Futurepedia AI tool by slug or URL, returning ratings, review text, and reviewer names for analysis.
User reviews of one Futurepedia AI tool (slug or URL): rating, review text and reviewer name. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Tool slug or Futurepedia URL. e.g. midjourney | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 250) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('1 point per returned record') and the shape of returned data, which is more than most siblings offer. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when a slug/URL is invalid, so 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 short clauses: the resource/return-shape statement first, then the cost note. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant information (what you get, what it costs) is front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it flags the per-record billing. The remaining gap is pagination/iteration guidance for pulling reviews beyond a single call, which would matter given the 250-item cap.
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 both parameters are already documented by the schema, including the slug/URL format and the 250-item cap. The description only echoes the slug-or-URL input, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: it fetches user reviews of one Futurepedia AI tool, and enumerates the returned fields (rating, review text, reviewer name). It is clear about scope, but does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as run_theresanaiforthat_tools_reviews or other review endpoints in the list.
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 never says when to use this instead of run_futurepedia_tools_search, run_futurepedia_tools, or run_theresanaiforthat_tools_reviews. Usage is only implied by the resource name, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.