Skip to main content
Glama

How Good It Can Get™ Clarity OS

by com.howgooditcanget
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

clarity_os

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

TableJSON 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_textYesThe person’s situation or agent-provided context to process through Clarity OS.
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 evidence. Callers should not manufacture unsupported safety facts.
capacity_signalsNoOptional structured capacity signals.
explicit_requestNoOptional explicit request or desired clarification.
requested_resourceNoOptional resource identifier. Resource access remains governed separately from reasoning.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. 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."
  3. 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."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the tool is nonclinical, governed, preserves uncertainty and personal agency, and may return protective safety routing. It does not address data handling, latency, or whether the person's text is stored, which for a sensitive mental-health-adjacent tool is a residual gap.

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?

The trigger conditions are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by capability, then the exclusion list. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with only mild redundancy between 'identify what is happening, clarify what matters, and choose a grounded next step' and the surrounding framing.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the primary input (`user_text`) and one output behavior (safety routing), but says nothing about the shape of the main clarity response or how the structured safety/capacity objects are used. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a safety-sensitive tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description only points at `user_text` ('Provide the person's situation in `user_text`') and adds nothing about the optional structured parameters like `safety_evidence`, `capacity_signals`, or `requested_resource`, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 states a specific function (governed, nonclinical clarity support) and enumerates the triggering situations it handles: overthinking, emotional activation, uncertainty, decision friction, repeating patterns, difficult conversations. It is clear what the tool does, though the abstract phrasing ('clarity support') leaves the concrete output somewhat fuzzy; no siblings exist to differentiate against.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given as a concrete list of presenting problems, and when-not-to-use is stated directly: 'Do not use for diagnosis, treatment, crisis intervention, or emergency support.' With no sibling tools, no alternative routing is needed, so the guidance is complete.

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