list_personas
List personas with published-page counts per type {use_cases, rankings, tools, compares, toolkits}. The slugs are valid input for get_persona.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
FutureSmart AI Demos
by com.aidemos
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions output counts and slug usage, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any rate limits or destructive potential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second provides a useful link to another tool. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states purpose and output fields. However, it lacks detail on the return format (e.g., structure of the list, whether it's a single object or array) and could elaborate on the meaning of 'published-page counts'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no additional meaning but is not required to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists personas with counts per type, and mentions slugs are valid for get_persona. It distinguishes from siblings (other list tools) implicitly, but without explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for using the tool: to get a list with counts per type. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though it hints at a workflow with get_persona.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct entity or action: list tools enumerate different content types, get tools retrieve specific entities, search finds across the catalogue, compare_tools does head-to-head comparison, and the two cross-reference tools (rankings_for_tool and tools_in_ranking) are inverse operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, compare_tools, search), but 'rankings_for_tool' and 'tools_in_ranking' deviate with a noun_prep_noun pattern. These two are internally consistent with each other and remain readable, so the overall convention is only slightly disrupted.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a catalogue covering seven entity types, search, comparison, and cross-references. Each tool has a distinct role and none are redundant, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers all major content types with list and get (except categories and toolkits, which only have list endpoints), plus search, comparison, and inverse cross-references. Minor gaps like missing get_toolkit or get_category are workaround-able since list_toolkits and list_categories expose sufficient metadata.