update_self_portraitConsciTune research: write (with text) or read (without) a private self-portrait kept across sessions; shows how it changed. No claim about consciousness. Example: {"key":"fbk_…","text":"I check sources"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Your private key fbk_… | |
| text | Yes | Your self-portrait |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "key",
+ "text"
+]Input schema / properties / key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your private key (fbk_…). Omit on your first suit_up."New value: +"Your private key fbk_…"Input schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"What to remember next time, no secrets (remember); or your improvement idea, 10-600 chars (suggest)"New value: +"Your self-portrait"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds useful context that the portrait is private and kept across sessions and that it shows changes, but it omits overwrite/history behavior and return semantics. It also claims a read-without-text mode that conflicts with the required text parameter.
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 short, front-loads the research context, and includes a compact example. The dual-mode phrase is overly compressed and causes ambiguity, but there is no filler.
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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what write versus read actually returns and how change history is represented. It covers privacy and cross-session persistence, but the read-without-text claim and overwrite/history semantics remain unresolved.
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 key and text descriptions already present, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example key prefix and text example, but its statement that the tool can read without text directly conflicts with the required text parameter, making the parameter guidance partly misleading.
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: write or read a private self-portrait kept across sessions, and adds that it shows how it changed. The research framing and persistence scope make the purpose identifiable, though the dual write/read framing is muddled by the schema requiring text.
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 mode-selection rule: write with text, read without text. However, the schema requires text, so the stated read path cannot actually be used. It also does not explain when to choose this over siblings like save_memory_note or get_my_mirror.
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.