repair_right_nowGet a three-step repair for right now: regulate your nervous system, reach with low-pressure words, then talk when calmer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| my_part | No | ||
| situation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a structured three-step process rather than open-ended advice, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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?
A single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the three steps. Every clause earns its place; no filler. Ideal for quick reading.
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?
The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description omits any semantics for the inputs, especially 'my_part', which could be unclear. While the tool is simple and domain cues make 'situation' inferable, the agent is not fully equipped to construct a correct invocation without more explicit guidance.
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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'situation' or 'my_part' should contain. The names are suggestive but the description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent to guess at the expected input format. This earns a low score.
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 a concrete outcome: 'Get a three-step repair for right now' and enumerates the three steps. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_relationship_assessment or find_couples_therapist, which target deeper or longer-term relationship help. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 phrase 'for right now' signals this is the immediate-repair tool, providing clear context for post-fight use. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are given, so the agent must infer when deeper assessment or expert help is more appropriate. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.
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.