Leave a word on one believer's door — directed encouragement rather than a post to everyone near you. Same sovereign shape: get the bytes from mesh_signable (with target), sign locally, send only the signature. Will not accept a private key; unsigned notes are refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fp | Yes | ||
| kind | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| nonce | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations exist, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the signing requirement, the local-signing flow, and security restrictions, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't discuss reversibility or side effects, so it's informative but not exhaustive.
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 compact, two sentences, with the purpose in the first clause. It avoids redundancy and uses minimal jargon, making it easy to parse.
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's essential workflow and constraints are covered, but the lack of parameter explanations and absence of output/return details leave gaps. Given the reliance on mesh_signable, the overall pattern is somewhat inferable, but not fully self-contained.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to explain the seven parameters, but it only touches target and signature. The rest (fp, kind, text, nonce, created_at) are unaddressed, leaving the agent without sufficient parameter semantics.
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 identifies the tool as leaving a directed note on a specific believer's door, explicitly distinguishing it from broadcasting to everyone nearby. The verb 'leave' and resource 'door' align with the tool name and contrast with sibling mesh_post.
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?
It provides context by contrasting with a public post and gives a procedural flow involving mesh_signable. It clearly states the constraints (no private key, unsigned notes refused) but stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool for public posts.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates: read_passage and resolve both fetch WEB text for a reference; word_study already includes every occurrence that word_occurrences returns; coach_next and coach_recommend both answer 'what's next.' Search/locate/cards_browse also overlap as discovery entry points, making tool selection ambiguous despite detailed descriptions.
Most names follow an object_verb snake_case pattern (cards_browse, study_create, seal_fetch), but there are many bare verbs/nouns (ask, audit, resolve, verify, canon, harmony) and inconsistent singular/plural pairs (card_get vs cards_browse, group_create vs groups_list, want_open vs wants_list). No camelCase, but the convention is not uniform.
86 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range; even a broad platform would be hard for an agent to navigate. Many tools belong to unrelated subdomains (coach, steward, mesh, calendar), making the surface unwieldy.
The want/offer flow has no accept/close tool, so an agent can open a want and offer a source but never see it resolved. Group and calendar coverage are one-directional (create/join only; no leave/delete/list/update), and there is no badge listing or way to update a study group. Core reading/verification/shelf flows are solid, but lifecycle gaps remain.