Manage Podio system operations: ping APIs, check configuration, handle files and hooks, execute batch requests, and retrieve calendar data.
System tools: ping, config, files, hooks, batch, and calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| appId | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| refId | No | ||
| dateTo | No | ||
| fileId | No | ||
| hookId | No | ||
| refType | No | ||
| spaceId | No | ||
| appToken | No | ||
| dateFrom | No | ||
| operation | Yes | System operation | |
| outputPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists categories but says nothing about destructive operations like delete_file or delete_hook, hook verification behavior, batch execution semantics, permission requirements, or what any operation returns.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but for a 12-operation, 14-parameter system tool it is severely under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is not structured to help the agent select among operations or understand the parameter surface.
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 12 enum operations, 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent would have to infer operation behavior, required parameters per operation, mutation risks, and return formats entirely from the schema enum.
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 only 7%, and the sole documented parameter is the generic 'operation' field. The description does not explain the 13 other parameters, does not map parameters to specific operations, and provides no meaning for fields such as fileId, hookId, refType, appToken, outputPath, or dateFrom/dateTo.
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 names six system operation families (ping, config, files, hooks, batch, calendar), which gives a broad sense of scope beyond the tool name alone. However, it does not state actual verbs or explain what any operation does, and it does not clearly differentiate this tool from the domain-specific siblings such as podio_items or podio_apps_spaces.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tools at all, nor does it explain whether system-level file/hook/calendar operations should be routed here rather than through podio_items, podio_apps_spaces, or callPodioApi.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.