suggest_boardsGenerate keyword-named Pinterest board ideas (≤50 chars) with descriptions, keyword sets, and optional sections for a niche.
Suggest keyword-named boards (≤50 chars) with descriptions, keyword sets and optional sections for a niche.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| niche | Yes | ||
| keywords | Yes | Search phrases, most important first | |
| products | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output shape (boards with descriptions, keyword sets, sections) but says nothing about generation behavior, limits, or whether suggestions are deterministic — useful but modest added 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?
A single dense sentence with no filler and the resource constraint (≤50 chars) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the compressed phrasing makes the optional-sections clause slightly ambiguous.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so partially via the mention of boards, descriptions, keyword sets, and sections. However, it leaves the count and products inputs unexplained and offers no usage context, so it is only minimally adequate for a 4-parameter tool.
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 25% (only 'keywords' is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies 'niche' and 'keywords' inputs but never mentions the 'count' or 'products' parameters, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 ('Suggest') and resource ('boards') and adds concrete output detail: keyword-named boards ≤50 chars with descriptions, keyword sets, and optional sections. It is distinguishable from pin-centric siblings by the board focus, though it never explicitly says how it differs from tools like generate_pin_ideas.
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 says what it produces but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as generate_pin_ideas or plan_schedule. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing cues of any kind.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.