Get the latest full foresight report (markdown) for a published future-space. Use when the user wants the detailed analysis, or a quotable, cited source on a covered topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | future-space slug from list_public_spaces |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it gets the report, without mentioning authentication, error handling, or what 'latest' means. Behavioral traits like idempotency or speed are absent.
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 two sentences: one for definition, one for usage guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded core action.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage but omits details like return format (markdown) specifics, error cases, and prerequisites beyond the slug hint.
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 description adds value beyond the schema by specifying 'future-space slug from list_public_spaces', telling the agent to use list_public_spaces first. With 100% schema coverage, this context is useful but not essential.
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 clearly states it gets the latest full foresight report in markdown for a published future-space. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_public_scenarios and get_public_tensions by specifying 'report', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when the user wants the detailed analysis, or a quotable, cited source on a covered topic.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare directly with siblings.
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.
