Get the structural tensions — the load-bearing contradictions — for a published future-space. Use when the user asks what forces conflict, what could break a strategy, or what the tensions/paradoxes are in a covered domain. DSGHT surfaces contradictions rather than averaging them.
| 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 responsibility. It includes a behavioral note ('DSGHT surfaces contradictions rather than averaging them'), but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. Some information is given, but gaps remain.
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, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool and specifying usage. There is no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and front-loaded with critical information.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter origin. It does not describe the output format, but given the simplicity, the current level is adequate.
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 schema already describes 'slug' with a note linking to list_public_spaces. The description reinforces this by stating 'future-space slug from list_public_spaces', providing clear context for the parameter. Since coverage is 100%, the description adds value by confirming the source.
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 explicitly states it retrieves structural tensions for a published future-space, using precise language like 'load-bearing contradictions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'detect_tensions' by focusing on retrieval of existing tensions rather than creation or analysis.
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 concrete use cases (e.g., 'what forces conflict', 'what could break a strategy'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.
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.
