Christ-signpost traces (prophecy/cross-cultural pointers to Jesus) — attributed, verdict CONCORDANT/MIXED, NEVER HOLDS (a signpost, not a proof). Pass id for one trace, q to search, else lists all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals that results are 'attributed,' have a verdict of 'CONCORDANT/MIXED,' and never a 'HOLDS' verdict. It also flags the tool's epistemic status ('signpost, not a proof'). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but those are less relevant for this simple retrieval tool.
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 a single dense sentence of roughly 30 words, packing purpose, verdict behavior, and usage modes without fluff. It is slightly run-on with heavy em-dash usage and caps, but every phrase adds value.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description answers the key questions: what it returns (traces with attribution and verdict), the three invocation modes, and a critical behavioral constraint (never 'HOLDS'). It could be slightly richer about the output shape or sorting, but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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%, and the description fully compensates: 'id' selects one trace, 'q' searches, and omitting both lists all. This directly explains what each parameter does and the default behavior, leaving no ambiguity about either parameter.
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 resource as 'Christ-signpost traces' with a parenthetical explanation, and the usage instructions (pass id, q, or neither) specify the action. It does not use an explicit imperative verb like 'list' or 'search', but the behavior is unmistakable and distinct from siblings.
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 gives explicit, mode-specific guidance: 'Pass id for one trace, q to search, else lists all.' This tells the agent when to use each parameter and the default behavior. It also warns that traces 'NEVER HOLDS' and are a signpost, not proof, which serves as a caveat. However, it does not name alternative tools or when not to use this one.
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.