Generate an authoritative technical solution pitch with GitHub proof for a discovered lead, addressing pain points and budget intent in a non-salesy way.
Generate an authoritative, non-salesy technical solution pitch with GitHub proof for a discovered lead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| post_id | Yes | ||
| subreddit | Yes | ||
| pain_points | No | ||
| budget_intent | Yes | ||
| urgency_score | Yes | ||
| recommended_strategy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool mutates state, only returns a draft, makes external calls to GitHub, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The style adjectives and 'GitHub proof' hint at output characteristics, but important behavioral context is missing.
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 no filler. It front-loads the action and includes relevant style and evidence qualifiers. It could earn a 5 only if it also conveyed a bit more operational detail without becoming verbose.
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 9 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain what inputs are required, how they are used, what the generated pitch looks like, or what the tool returns. An agent has almost no guidance beyond the tool's name.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. The agent cannot infer how fields like urgency_score, budget_intent, pain_points, or recommended_strategy influence the pitch. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 clear verb and resource: generate a technical solution pitch for a lead. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools because none of them perform pitch generation. The qualifiers 'authoritative' and 'non-salesy' add clarity about the intended output style.
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 'for a discovered lead' gives useful context: this tool is meant to be used after a lead has been identified, likely following reddit_hunt_leads. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.