create_goalCreate a new maker goal on Product Hunt.
REQUIREMENTS: • Must have Product Hunt account connected • Write access requires app whitelisting by Product Hunt • Goal title limited to 280 characters
If write access is not available, you'll receive an error with instructions to request whitelisting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dueAt | No | Optional due date in ISO 8601 format | |
| title | Yes | Goal title (max 280 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds requirements and error handling details beyond the annotations: account connection prerequisite, app whitelisting for write access, and error instructions. Annotations already indicate destructive/write nature, and the description reinforces this without contradicting.
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 compact with a clear title, a requirements list, and a note about error behavior. Each line conveys essential information without fluff.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers prerequisites, an error path, and the title limit. It does not describe the success return value, but this is less critical for a create operation and annotations already signal write behavior.
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?
The input schema contains descriptions for all parameters (title with max 280, dueAt with ISO format), and the description only reiterates the title length limit. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value for parameters.
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 'Create a new maker goal on Product Hunt' with a specific verb (create), resource (maker goal), and platform. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like complete_goal and list_goals by specifying creation of goals.
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?
Lists prerequisites: must have Product Hunt account connected, write access requires app whitelisting, and mentions error behavior if write access is unavailable. This gives clear context on when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative goal-creating tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 148 tools, there is significant overlap. For example, generate_content, publish_ai, generate_post_bundle, and request_project_content all generate content; get_analytics, get_unified_analytics, get_post_analytics, get_ad_performance, and get_unified_ad_report all fetch performance metrics; and list_inbox vs list_conversations blur comment and conversation management. Descriptions help, but boundaries between tools are often unclear.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_teams, create_goal, delete_post), but there are notable deviations: create_library_item vs save_to_library, publish_content vs publish_ai, schedule_content vs schedule_content_advanced, and connect_platform vs connect_connector. Mixed prefixes like 'autopilot_', 'check_', and 'get_' are fine, but overlapping verbs and a hyphen in 'connect_linkedin-page' reduce consistency.
148 tools is extreme for any server. Even for a broad social media management platform, this is far beyond what an agent can effectively navigate. The count is unwieldy and suggests the surface should be split into multiple focused servers (publishing, analytics, connectors, workflows, etc.).
The core social publishing workflow is well covered (create, schedule, publish, edit, delete, retry), and there are extensive features for analytics, workflows, connectors, and AI agents. However, some resources have CRUD gaps: no update/delete for brand voices, no delete_project, no update/delete for Product Hunt goals, and no explicit get_workflow. These are workable but notable omissions.