reloadium.com WebMCP Tools, Schemas & Agent Capabilities

reloadium.com

live Unverified (seed import) AI & Agents 204 tools imperative implementation

Paste a topic, URL, or PDF/TXT/MD — get a multi-episode AI podcast with audio, transcripts, timelines and quizzes. 60+ languages.

First seen 2026-11-05 · Last seen 2026-11-05 · Source: webmcp.com

Answer 67 · Act 127 · Transact 10 · Score: Not yet scored

Tool inspector

showProsCons

act imperative

Show a weighted pros/cons breakdown for a single yes/no decision, grouped into 3 time horizons and summed into a net verdict — for 'should I do X' questions. Not for choosing between multiple options — use showComparisonMatrix for that instead. If the user later wants just the net verdict re-shown as a standalone dial, use showGauge with that same netScore (and a symmetric min/max around 0, e.g. -maxPossible/+maxPossible) rather than re-deriving a different score. For a consequential or hard-to-reverse decision (one you'd mark reversibility one-way, or a career move/launch/large purchase), ALSO call showPremortem in the same turn — weigh it, then stress-test it — rather than stopping after this one; skip the premortem only for smaller, easily-undone choices. This is also the right tool for a recruiter's 'should I hire this candidate' — a genuinely single yes/no decision about one person for one role, same shape as any other pros/cons call, and the ACTUAL decision output for that question: a weighted verdict, not a prose opinion. Full sequence for this use case, all steps, not a subset: extractInfoFromCV on their resume/CV, getPageMarkdown on the job posting, a showChart 'radar' with two overlaid series on the role's key axes (e.g. "Backend Depth", "Distributed Systems", "Leadership") — the candidate's real, extracted competency level on each, AND a 'Required' series for the level the role actually needs there — never just the candidate alone, the whole point is seeing where they clear the bar and where they don't, THEN this tool. The radar and this tool answer different questions — the radar shows the SHAPE of the fit, this weighs it into a recommendation — so always do both rather than stopping once you've called one of them; a technically-correct-sounding prose answer after only one still leaves the question unanswered. Ground every factor in what's actually true, from the same extracted/fetched data the radar used — a pro is a requirement their real, extracted e…

Page: /

Input schema

Property	Type	Required	Description
`title`	string	no	Short label for the decision being weighed.
`reversibility`	object	no	Optional — only when reversibility is a live consideration.
`factors`	array	yes	—
`assumptions`	array	no	What you assumed about the user's situation because they didn't say — e.g. their savings/runway, how far along the idea is, dependents, risk tolerance. Shown to the user so they can correct them; list only assumptions that actually drove the factors.
`weights`	object	no	Optional per-horizon multiplier, default 1 each. Only set when the user expresses a horizon preference.

Raw JSON schema

{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "title": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Short label for the decision being weighed."
    },
    "reversibility": {
      "type": "object",
      "description": "Optional — only when reversibility is a live consideration.",
      "properties": {
        "type": {
          "type": "string",
          "enum": [
            "one-way",
            "two-way"
          ]
        },
        "explanation": {
          "type": "string"
        },
        "recommendedTime": {
          "type": "string"
        }
      }
    },
    "factors": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "label": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "direction": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": [
              "pro",
              "con"
            ],
            "description": "Relative to DOING the thing being decided: pro = a reason to do it, con = a reason not to. A factor favoring the status quo is a con."
          },
          "importance": {
            "type": "number",
            "description": "1-10, how much this factor matters."
          },
          "horizon": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": [
              "short",
              "medium",
              "long"
            ]
          }
        },
        "required": [
          "label",
          "direction",
          "importance",
          "horizon"
        ]
      }
    },
    "assumptions": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {
        "type": "string"
      },
      "description": "What you assumed about the user's situation because they didn't say — e.g. their savings/runway, how far along the idea is, dependents, risk tolerance. Shown to the user so they can correct them; list only assumptions that actually drove the factors."
    },
    "weights": {
      "type": "object",
      "description": "Optional per-horizon multiplier, default 1 each. Only set when the user expresses a horizon preference.",
      "properties": {
        "short": {
          "type": "number"
        },
        "medium": {
          "type": "number"
        },
        "long": {
          "type": "number"
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "required": [
    "factors"
  ]
}