postfast-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits: whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires specific permissions, returns all boards or a subset, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'List' (verb), 'Pinterest boards' (resource), 'for a connected Pinterest account' (context). No fluff or redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error handling), usage context (e.g., when to use vs siblings), and output expectations. For a tool in a social media context with siblings like list_accounts, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'socialMediaId' well-documented in the schema as a Pinterest account ID from list_accounts. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for a 'connected Pinterest account', which aligns with but doesn't extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Pinterest boards') with the context ('for a connected Pinterest account'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_accounts or list_posts by specifying boards. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_youtube_playlists which serves a different platform but similar listing function.

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 provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when needing Pinterest boards for a connected account. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., list_accounts for accounts, list_posts for posts), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requires a valid socialMediaId), and no exclusions or comparison to other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.