get_author_personaGet setup instructions for an AI assistant to answer as, about, or from the corpus of an author while using source-linked evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | voice | |
| author | Yes | Author slug or name, e.g. cicero. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| setup | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| persona | No | ||
| warning | No | ||
| author_slug | No | ||
| tools_to_use | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'setup instructions' with 'source-linked evidence', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
While the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not elaborate on the return value format. With a simple purpose, the description is adequate but could benefit from mentioning that the output contains instructions and evidence sources.
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 has 50% parameter description coverage (only 'author' described). The description does not add meaning for the 'mode' parameter or clarify the 'author' parameter beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 the tool's action ('Get setup instructions') and resource ('for an AI assistant to answer as, about, or from the corpus of an author'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_work or search_corpus.
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 implies usage context (for AI assistant persona setup) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
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 aspect of the corpus: general search vs. specific entity search, passage retrieval vs. work metadata, allusions vs. cross-references, etc. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_authors, search_corpus, get_passage) and use snake_case throughout, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool covers a necessary function for a rich text corpus API (search, retrieval, cross-referencing). No tools feel redundant or excessive.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: listing authors/works, searching for passages/entities/Greek phrases/letters, retrieving full passages, work metadata, allusions, crossrefs, parallel texts, citation formatting, and AI evidence pack building. No obvious gaps are present.