get_relationship_assessmentGet the free Figlet assessment that explores relationship patterns, attachment, communication, conflict, and relational strengths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional note about what you are looking for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level transparency by naming the relational domains explored, but it does not disclose how the optional context parameter affects the assessment or what the returned assessment looks like.
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, reasonably efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes some low-value wording ('free', the unexplained 'Figlet') but overall it stays compact and readable.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, so the description does not need to carry much. However, it never explains what the returned assessment contains, how the context parameter is used, or why an agent should select this over related sibling tools.
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%, and the sole parameter 'context' already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, matching the baseline for full schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the free Figlet assessment'), and lists the topics it covers: relationship patterns, attachment, communication, conflict, and relational strengths. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like wisdom_score_preview, and the unexplained 'Figlet' term adds ambiguity.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ask_relationship_expert or wisdom_score_preview. The title and description imply it is for taking an assessment, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: general Q&A, finding a therapist, taking an assessment, naming conflict patterns, providing immediate repair steps, and offering wisdom score insights. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_, find_, get_, name_, repair_, wisdom_score_preview). The verbs are varied but each clearly indicates the action, and the pattern is uniform across the set.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a relationship expert domain. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of relationship guidance without excess or redundancy, making the count appropriate for both usability and maintainability.
The tool surface covers core relationship needs: general advice, therapist matching, assessment, conflict analysis, immediate repair, and personalized insight. The only minor gap is the lack of a tool for scheduling sessions or accessing broader educational resources, but the existing set addresses the primary lifecycle without significant dead ends.