Use when the user pastes strategy text and asks what is internally inconsistent: detects the structural contradictions — where the text quietly bets on two things that cannot both hold. Stateless taster; nothing is stored. DSGHT surfaces the conflict rather than smoothing it over.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Strategy / plan / memo text to analyze (plain text). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses statelessness ('Stateless taster; nothing is stored') and output style ('surfaces the conflict rather than smoothing it over'), though no annotations exist to complement.
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?
Three sentences with no fluff, though the phrase 'DSGHT surfaces the conflict' could be clearer to those unfamiliar with the acronym.
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?
For a simple stateless tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output style.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description reinforces the purpose but adds little new parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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?
Description clearly states the tool detects structural contradictions in strategy text, using specific verbs ('detects', 'surfaces') and distinguishing it from siblings like 'extract_assumptions' by focusing on internal inconsistency.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when the user pastes strategy text and asks what is internally inconsistent', providing clear context, but does not mention when not to use or alternative 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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: text analysis (detect_tensions, extract_assumptions), retrieval of published foresight (get_public_report, etc.), listing available resources (list_countries, list_public_spaces), searching (search_spaces), and macro claim resolution (resolve_country_claim). Even similar-sounding tools like detect_tensions and get_public_tensions are clearly differentiated by purpose (user-provided text vs. published analysis).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: detect_tensions, extract_assumptions, get_country_indicator, get_public_report, get_public_scenarios, get_public_tensions, list_countries, list_public_spaces, resolve_country_claim, search_spaces. The verbs are specific and the nouns are descriptive, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 10 tools, the server covers its domain—strategic foresight and macro indicators—without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is appropriate for the scope: text analysis, resource listing, retrieval, search, and claim resolution. There is no unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core workflows: analyzing user-provided strategy text, retrieving published foresight reports/scenarios/tensions, listing available spaces and countries, searching, and resolving macro claims. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve a specific extracted assumption (though extraction is stateless by design). Overall, the surface is largely complete for a public-facing server.
