Skip to main content
Glama

How Good It Can Get™ Clarity OS

by com.howgooditcanget
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

clarity_os

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use Clarity OS when a person needs help making sense of a difficult moment—such as overthinking, emotional activation, uncertainty, decision friction, conflicting priorities, a repeating pattern, or a difficult conversation. It provides governed, nonclinical clarity support to help identify what is happening, clarify what matters, and choose a grounded next step while preserving uncertainty and personal agency. It may return protective safety routing when appropriate. Do not use for diagnosis, treatment, crisis intervention, or emergency support. Provide the person’s situation in user_text.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emotionsNoOptional emotional-state labels supported by the person’s language, such as anxiety, worry, frustration, or uncertainty. These are provisional matching hints; omit them rather than guess.
user_textYesRequired. The person’s current message or situation, preserved as provided. Include enough context to understand the moment; do not add facts the person did not provide.
topic_tagsNoOptional concise topics supported by the situation. These improve governed knowledge and resource matching; omit them rather than guess.
pattern_refsNoOptional supported pattern labels, such as overthinking loop or anxiety pattern. These improve matching and are not required.
safety_evidenceNoOptional. Structured safety facts directly provided by the person or established by the caller. Omit unsupported fields; never manufacture safety evidence.
capacity_signalsNoOptional. Structured, directly supported signals about current attention, readiness, or ability to engage. Omit rather than infer.
explicit_requestNoOptional. The specific help or clarification the person explicitly requested. Omit when no explicit request was stated; do not infer one.
requested_resourceNoOptional. A governed HGICG resource identifier only when a specific resource is requested. This does not grant access; resource access remains separately governed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / capacity_signals / description
      Previous value: -"Optional structured capacity signals."New value: +"Optional. Structured, directly supported signals about current attention, readiness, or ability to engage. Omit rather than infer."
    • changedInput schema / properties / explicit_request / description
      Previous value: -"Optional explicit request or desired clarification."New value: +"Optional. The specific help or clarification the person explicitly requested. Omit when no explicit request was stated; do not infer one."
    • changedInput schema / properties / requested_resource / description
      Previous value: -"Optional resource identifier. Resource access remains governed separately from reasoning."New value: +"Optional. A governed HGICG resource identifier only when a specific resource is requested. This does not grant access; resource access remains separately governed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / safety_evidence / description
      Previous value: -"Optional structured safety evidence. Callers should not manufacture unsupported safety facts."New value: +"Optional. Structured safety facts directly provided by the person or established by the caller. Omit unsupported fields; never manufacture safety evidence."
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_text / description
      Previous value: -"The person’s situation or agent-provided context to process through Clarity OS."New value: +"Required. The person’s current message or situation, preserved as provided. Include enough context to understand the moment; do not add facts the person did not provide."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / emotions
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional emotional-state labels supported by the person’s language, such as anxiety, worry, frustration, or uncertainty. These are provisional matching hints; omit them rather than guess.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / pattern_refs / description
      Added value: +"Optional supported pattern labels, such as overthinking loop or anxiety pattern. These improve matching and are not required."
    • addedInput schema / properties / topic_tags / description
      Added value: +"Optional concise topics supported by the situation. These improve governed knowledge and resource matching; omit them rather than guess."
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "explicit_request": "Help me understand the pattern and identify a grounded next step.",
+    "user_text": "I keep replaying a difficult conversation and cannot tell whether I am solving anything or just looping."
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_text / description
      Previous value: -"The human or agent-provided text to process through Clarity OS."New value: +"The person’s situation or agent-provided context to process through Clarity OS."
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is nonclinical and governed, it preserves uncertainty and personal agency, and it may return protective safety routing. It does not describe the shape of a normal response, but the safety-relevant behavioral context is unusually well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the use case and followed by capability, exclusions, and the single required input instruction. Every sentence carries information (scope, behavior, prohibitions, input), though the capability sentence is somewhat long and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an eight-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers domain, exclusions, and the required input. The unenumerated nested objects (safety_evidence, capacity_signals) are only loosely described in the schema, but that is a schema defect rather than a description gap. Output content is only lightly implied ('choose a grounded next step', 'protective safety routing'), which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the 'omit rather than guess' guidance on optional fields. The description adds only one parameter-level instruction, 'Provide the person's situation in user_text,' which restates the required field without adding format or content guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the trigger conditions concretely (overthinking, emotional activation, uncertainty, decision friction, conflicting priorities, repeating patterns, difficult conversations) and states the outcome-oriented job: identify what is happening, clarify what matters, and choose a grounded next step. The verb/resource pairing is somewhat abstract ('governed clarity support'), so it is clear but not as crisp as a named operation on a named resource. With no siblings, no sibling differentiation is needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use criteria and an explicit when-not-to-use list: 'Do not use for diagnosis, treatment, crisis intervention, or emergency support.' It also signals a routing behavior ('may return protective safety routing'), which tells the agent how the tool behaves at the boundary of its scope. There are no alternatives to distinguish from, so nothing further is required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All How Good It Can Get™ Clarity OS toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources