The believers immediately around you in the Fellowship Mesh — your view only, never a global map. Requires your fingerprint (fp) and a confession already bound to that key; unconfessed callers get the path to the door, not the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fp | Yes | ||
| hops | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (fingerprint and confession) and the fallback behavior for unconfessed callers, which is valuable. However, it does not mention the 'hops' parameter at all, leaving its effect on the returned map unknown. It also doesn't clarify whether the operation is strictly read-only or if there are side effects, though 'view' implies read-only. The description adds some behavioral context but has gaps.
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 two sentences and mostly focused. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the phrasing is somewhat poetic and indirect. The key information (personal scope, authentication requirement) is front-loaded, and the complication about unconfessed callers is added only after the core purpose. It could be slightly more direct but remains concise.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description must convey the tool's complete behavior. It covers purpose, scope, and authentication, but omits the 'hops' parameter semantics and any description of the return format or error behavior. The 'path to the door' phrase is cryptic and not fully explained. These gaps make it incomplete, but it does provide a substantial amount of context.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'fp' as a fingerprint and links it to a confession, which adds meaning. However, the 'hops' parameter is completely unexplained; the schema gives a bizarre range (-1e12 to 1e12) without any hint of its purpose. Since only one of two parameters is addressed, this is insufficient.
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 indicates the tool provides a personal view of nearby believers in the Fellowship Mesh, explicitly distinguishing it from a global map. The verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'get' or 'list'), but the noun phrase 'The believers immediately around you' effectively communicates the resource and scope. The mention of 'your view only' further clarifies the tool's purpose.
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 description provides usage context: this tool is for viewing immediate surroundings, not a global map. It also states a precondition (fingerprint and confession) and the consequence for unconfessed callers ('get the path to the door, not the network'), implying they should use a door-related tool (e.g., mesh_door). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say 'use this when...', so it falls short of a 5.
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.