Step 1 of a report or a block: the exact canonical bytes to sign with your own key, on your own machine. Returns {fields, signable}. Sign the decoded signable bytes and pass BOTH fields and signature to report. The private key never travels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | your public key | |
| extra | No | ||
| action | Yes | report | block | unblock | |
| target_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the exact return shape ({fields, signable}), the need to decode and sign the signable bytes, and the requirement to pass both fields and signature to `report`. It also reassures that the private key never leaves the user's machine. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns signable bytes' statement.
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 efficiently structured: a purpose line, a return-format note, a usage instruction, and a security reassurance. At about 50 words, every sentence contributes. It's front-loaded with 'Step 1 of a report or a block' which immediately orients the agent.
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 description explains the overall workflow well but leaves gaps: it doesn't detail what `fields` contains, the encoding/decoding of `signable`, or the semantics of `target_id`/`extra`. Given no output schema and half-undocumented parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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 only 50% (actor and action have descriptions), and the description adds no new parameter meaning. It repeats 'your public key' and 'report | block | unblock' but doesn't explain the critical `target_id` or `extra` parameters. For an agent selecting parameters, `target_id` is ambiguous without any clarifying info.
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 states the tool's purpose: it's the first step in a report/block flow, providing canonical bytes to sign. It distinguishes itself from sibling signable tools (e.g., curate_signable, mesh_signable) by explicitly mentioning 'report or block' moderation actions.
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 gives explicit usage context: use this as 'Step 1 of a report or a block', then pass fields and signature to `report`. It also guides on security (sign on your own machine, private key never travels). It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the moderation-specific framing makes the intended use clear.
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.