SEL practice for kids 6-14: trait guides, practice scenarios, what-to-say guides for parents.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct target: site overview, practice scenarios, parent guides, and SEL traits. The only mild overlap is find_practice_situation vs get_what_to_say, since both take a situation/topic and return content, but descriptions clearly distinguish child-facing practice scenarios from parent-facing guides.
All four tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (find_practice_situation, get_site_overview, get_what_to_say, list_traits). Retrieval verbs (find/get/list) are used predictably and there is no mixing of conventions.
Four tools is reasonable for a narrow, read-only content server, each earning its place. It is on the lean side, but nothing feels redundant or missing at the count level.
The surface covers the key queryable content: overview, practice scenarios, parent what-to-say guides, and traits. As a read-only published-content server no CRUD is expected, though there is no tool to look up a specific scenario or guide by identifier, a minor gap.
Finds up to 3 public Life Scenario practice scenarios for a real-life situation a child is facing (for example: left out at recess, peer pressure, cheating in a group chat, parents arguing, a new school). Returns each scenario's title, a short excerpt, the ages it is written for, the traits it practises, a link the adult can open to try it together with the child without an account and, when one is published, the parent page or what-to-say guide about the same situation. match_quality says how well the results fit: "close" or "loose" (check before sharing). The public set is a small sample of the game, so an empty or loose result means only that no public scenario fits. Returns authored practice scenarios only, never other children's answers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | Optional child age (6–14). Scenarios written for this age are ranked first. | |
| situation | Yes | The situation in everyday words, e.g. "friends pressure him to laugh at another kid". |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| matches | Yes | Up to 3 practice scenarios; empty when no public scenario fits. |
| how_it_works | No | |
| match_quality | No | close = the scenarios are about this situation; loose = they only touch it, check that they fit before sharing. Absent when there are no matches. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers on substantial extra behavior: the 3-result cap, the no-account link, the empty-or-loose result meaning only that no public scenario fits, and the scope guarantee 'Returns authored practice scenarios only, never other children's answers'. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information, but the middle sentence is a packed, comma-heavy list of return fields that could be tightened or deferred to the output schema. Dense rather than wasteful.
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 two-parameter read tool with a full schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description leaves no operational gap: results cap, match_quality semantics, privacy scope, and the public-sample caveat are all covered.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including age ranking and the situation example. The description restates the age-ranking behavior and output fields but adds no new syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Finds up to 3 public Life Scenario practice scenarios') and pins down the exact input context ('a real-life situation a child is facing') with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_what_to_say, which surfaces the guide rather than the practice scenarios.
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?
Gives a clear when-to-use context (an adult searching for a practice scenario matching a child's situation) and warns to 'check match_quality before sharing'. It stops short of naming when not to use it or explicitly directing the agent to a sibling tool for adjacent needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Factual overview of Life Scenario: what the SEL practice game for children aged 6–14 does, what it is not, how child safety is handled, what this server can and cannot see, and key links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| links | No | |
| safety | No | |
| traits | No | |
| company | No | |
| website | Yes | |
| what_it_is | Yes | |
| what_it_is_not | No | |
| about_this_server | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it discloses that the response covers 'what it is not' and, notably, 'what this server can and cannot see' – useful scope transparency about the server's visibility limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the subject, followed by a compact colon list of the covered topics. Dense but every clause names distinct content, so nothing is wasted; only slightly list-heavy.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter tool needs no argument guidance. The description adequately frames the content scope; the only gap is the absent routing guidance toward or away from siblings.
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 tool takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the empty schema is consistent with the description.
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?
States a specific verb (overview) and resource (Life Scenario), then enumerates exactly what the overview contains: the game's purpose, boundaries, child-safety handling, server visibility, and links. It is clearly the orientation-style tool among specific lookups, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.
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 never states when to call this versus find_practice_situation, get_what_to_say, or list_traits. Usage is only implied by the word 'overview' and by the fact that it is content-agnostic while its siblings presume Life Scenario context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Finds the published Life Scenario "What to say" guide for parents that best matches a topic (for example: "nobody will play with me", "being teased") and returns its short answer, the key lines a child can say, its URL and, when the guide has one, a practice_url: a practice scenario on a similar situation that the adult can open with the child without signing up. If no guide on that topic is published yet, says so and suggests the nearest public practice scenario instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The topic or the words the child used, e.g. "left out at recess". |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| title | No | |
| status | No | |
| updated | No | |
| for_ages | No | |
| guides_hub | No | |
| key_scripts | No | |
| how_it_works | No | |
| practice_url | No | A practice scenario on a similar situation; opens without an account. Present only when the guide has one. |
| short_answer | No | |
| match_quality | No | For a guide: "close". With status no_article_yet: how well nearest_practice_situation fits, "close" or "loose". |
| practice_note | No | What the practice link is, and the ages the scenario is written for when narrower than the guide's. |
| published_guides | No | |
| nearest_practice_situation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world traits, so the bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them: the no-signup practice_url behavior and the graceful 'no guide published' fallback with a nearest practice scenario suggestion — non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.
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?
Dense but front-loaded: it leads with the action and resource, then the return payload, then the fallback. Every clause conveys a distinct fact, though the run-on sentence structure makes it slightly heavy to parse.
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-param, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies ample context — what it returns, the practice_url extra, and the empty-result path. Return-value detail is technically redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 single required param, so the schema already documents the input. The description reinforces the topic semantics ('a topic... the words the child used') and examples that parallel the schema description but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Finds') plus the precise resource ('published Life Scenario "What to say" guide for parents') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not name the sibling find_practice_situation even though it clearly overlaps with it, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
It gives the input context (a child's situation topic, with examples) and describes the fallback when no guide is published, which implies usage. However, it never says when to prefer find_practice_situation over this tool or states an explicit precondition, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lists the 15 social and emotional learning (SEL) traits Life Scenario practises, each with a plain-language description and the everyday skills it covers. Use it to explain what a trait means for a child aged 6–14.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| traits | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contribution is that the list is fixed at 15 traits and each entry carries a plain-language description and covered skills—useful framing, but largely echoed by the output schema.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the intended use. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.
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?
With no inputs, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description only needs to establish the content and purpose of the list—which it does, including the count and per-trait fields.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not confuse the absence of inputs.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the 15 social and emotional learning (SEL) traits') plus the exact payload shape (description + everyday skills), which is more than a restated name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools (find_practice_situation, get_site_overview, get_what_to_say), though their functions are plainly distinct.
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?
'Use it to explain what a trait means for a child aged 6–14' gives a clear intended context and audience. It stops short of when-not-to-use or naming alternatives, but for a parameterless reference-list tool that is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_practice_situationget_site_overviewget_what_to_saylist_traitsPlain-English child psychiatry library — short explainers and decision guides for parents.
A 2-minute assessment to help parents understand and respond to student safety concerns with clarity
Clinician-reviewed library on ADHD in teens — accommodations, executive function, evaluations.
Teen-first library on CBT, DBT, and finding the right therapist.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
