Dream Interpretation MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds useful content scope (2,200+ symbols, category coverage) but says nothing about result shape, pagination behavior, or rate/usage limits beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the middle sentence is a long keyword enumeration (animals, scenarios, people, objects, emotions, body parts, colors, numbers) that reads as SEO padding rather than agent-relevant information. It is not disastrously long, but several clauses do not earn their place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description supplies the catalogue size, content categories and both retrieval modes, leaving only minor gaps such as extra sibling differentiation for a five-parameter search tool.

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 100% and every parameter (q, limit, letter, offset, compact) is already documented with types, ranges and defaults in the schema. The description only restates the letter-filter and keyword-search intent, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (browse and search) plus the resource (a 2,200+ entry dream interpretation dictionary) and its content scope. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_dreams_symbols_id, get_dreams_symbols_letters and get_dreams_symbols_random, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 closing sentence gives operative guidance for the two parameter modes: 'Filter by starting letter for A-Z navigation or search by keyword.' That is implied usage rather than explicit routing — it never says when to prefer this tool over get_dreams_symbols_random or get_dreams_symbols_letters, nor when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as error behavior for an invalid id, rate limits, or whether the response is cached; it focuses entirely on the content of the interpretation.

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 first sentence is well-placed and informative, but the description then expands into two marketing-style sentences and a long list of dream themes (snake dreams, falling dreams, water dreams, etc.) that do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly. This is bloated and not front-loaded after the opening.

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 low complexity (one required string id), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter syntax. It states the tool's purpose clearly, though it leaves sibling differentiation to inference.

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 100%, and the schema fully documents both the required 'id' parameter (kebab-case format) and the optional 'compact' parameter (columnar response shape). The description adds no additional meaning for either parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the complete dream interpretation for a specific symbol.' This clearly distinguishes it as a single-symbol lookup rather than a list or random retrieval, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling tools.

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 only an implied usage condition ('for a specific symbol') with no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (get_dreams_symbols, get_dreams_symbols_letters, get_dreams_symbols_random, post_dreams_daily).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns counts grouped by starting letter, but does not disclose things like whether zero-count letters are included or how the response is ordered. Given an output schema exists, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The illustrative phrase 'from abandonment dreams to zodiac dreams' is mildly colorful but not excessive, and the rest is informative without redundancy.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the purpose and use case. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety.

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?

The only parameter, compact, is fully documented in the input schema with a clear description of its shape and token savings. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the count of dream symbols available for each letter A-Z.' It also clarifies the intended structure (alphabetical letters) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_dreams_symbols by focusing on per-letter counts for dictionary navigation.

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 a concrete use case: 'Build alphabetical dream dictionary navigation to help users browse dream interpretations by letter.' It implies when to use this tool versus the general symbol endpoints, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: each call returns different results (non-deterministic), drawn from a 2,200+ entry database, and can return one or many symbols. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, but the output schema handles that.

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 purpose is front-loaded correctly, but the middle sentence pads with four promotional use cases ('dream of the day features, dream journaling prompts, meditation on subconscious themes, exploring what different dreams mean') that largely restate one another. It is serviceable but not tight.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the randomness behavior, and the dataset scale. Nothing essential to invocation is missing; only the sibling relationship is left unstated.

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 100%, with both 'count' and 'compact' fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'one or multiple' interpretations and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Discover random dream symbols and their interpretations') and the word 'random' implicitly separates it from the lookup-style siblings like get_dreams_symbols_id and get_dreams_symbols_letters. It never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 lists concrete use cases ('dream of the day features, dream journaling prompts, meditation'), which implies when the tool fits, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never contrasts itself with the sibling symbol tools. Usage is suggested rather than routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: same seed plus same date yields the same symbol, omitting the seed falls back to date-based selection, and the response includes full psychological interpretation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences and front-loads the core action and value proposition. The seed behavior and use cases follow naturally, and there is minimal filler. The target-app sentence is somewhat optional but still helpful for context.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters and an output schema, this description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returnsainer, how reproducibility works, and when to use it. Compact output is not described, but the schema covers it, and no critical invocation details are missing.

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 100%, so the parameters date, seed, and compact are already well documented. The description restates seed behavior and gives examples like userId/email hash/session token, but those examples also appear in the schema. It adds no significant meaning beyond the schema for compact, leaving that to the input 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 opens with 'Receive a single dream symbol' and positions it as a daily, seeded, reproducible endpoint, which clearly separates it from generic symbol lookups. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_dreams_symbols_random, but the 'Dream Symbol of the Day' framing and determinism make its purpose clear.

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 clear context: it is 'perfect for Dream Symbol of the Day' features and lists appropriate app categories. It also explains when to pass a seed versus when to omit it for date-based daily symbols. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use another sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.