THE PLAYBOOK — the Body's testimony of faithful obedience: 'Canon commands, Playbook remembers.' List entries (optionally by status quarantine/confirmed/rejected/pruned or author), or one by id. Confirmed testimony is affirmed BY THE BODY — it is NOT Scripture and binds no conscience. The Playbook remembers; it never becomes doctrine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'List' and the tool name 'read', but it never explicitly states that it makes no changes, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or output behavior. The focus on theological context does not address operational transparency.
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 padded with poetic repetition: 'Canon commands, Playbook remembers' and 'The Playbook remembers; it never becomes doctrine' convey the same idea. The core functional information is buried in rhetorical framing, and the description is longer than necessary.
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?
With 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to understand what the tool does and the main filters, but it does not describe the return structure, default limit behavior, or error handling. It is adequate for a simple list/read operation but leaves several operational gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains `status` with enumerated values (quarantine/confirmed/rejected/pruned), and mentions `author` and `id` as filters. It omits `limit`, but the other parameters are given meaningful context beyond the raw schema.
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 function: 'List entries (optionally by `status` ... or `author`), or one by `id`.' It identifies the resource (the Playbook) and distinguishes it from Scripture ('it is NOT Scripture'), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like canon.
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 implies usage context by clarifying that the Playbook is 'testimony' and 'not doctrine,' suggesting it is for reading community records rather than authoritative teaching. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, leaving the guidance implicit.
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.