Dream Interpretation MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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. The description focuses solely on the tool's purpose and search functionality, omitting any mention of important behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects (e.g., logging search queries). This is a significant gap for a search 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 two sentences: the first succinctly states the tool's purpose and scale (2,000+ symbols), and the second provides illustrative examples. It is front-loaded with the most critical information. A slightly more concise version could omit some examples, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should compensate by detailing return values or pagination behavior. It mentions filtering and search but does not describe the response format, page size behavior, or any limitations (e.g., what happens if no results). It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves moderate gaps for full autonomous use.

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 each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'q': 'Search query...', 'letter': 'Filter symbols by starting letter...'). The description adds complementary context by mentioning 'A-Z navigation' and 'keyword search,' but it does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 description clearly states 'Browse and search our complete dream interpretation dictionary containing 2,000+ dream symbols with psychological meanings.' Combined with the tool name, it unambiguously identifies the verb (browse/search) and resource (dream symbols dictionary). The sibling tools suggest distinct use cases (e.g., get_dreams_symbols_id for a specific symbol, get_dreams_symbols_random for random), so this tool's purpose is well-differentiated.

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 explicit usage context: 'Filter by starting letter for A-Z navigation or search by keyword to find what your dreams mean.' It also enumerates example categories (animals, scenarios, etc.) to guide the agent on what to search for. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when retrieving a specific symbol by ID or a random symbol), leaving some inference to the agent.

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?

With no annotations, the description takes full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'detailed psychological analysis' and covers many dream themes, implying a read-only, safe operation. It does not warn about any side effects or prerequisites, but the read-only nature is inferred from the verb 'get'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides additional context about the analysis and examples. It is efficient with no redundant sentences, though the list of dream themes could be considered slightly verbose.

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 simple parameter set (one required ID) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and gives concrete examples of symbols. The lack of return format description is a minor gap, but the tool's purpose is well-covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description and example; it merely lists example dream themes, which duplicates the example field. The agent gets sufficient information from the schema alone.

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 'Get the complete dream interpretation for a specific symbol,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dreams_symbols (list all) and get_dreams_symbols_random (random symbol) by indicating it targets a single symbol by ID.

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 implied usage is for retrieving details of a known symbol ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for listing symbols or getting random ones). The description does not provide exclusion criteria or context for choosing this tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns counts per letter for navigation. However, it does not disclose response format, behavior for letters with zero symbols, or that it is read-only.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences, no wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple count tool. It explains function and use case. Minor gap on return details.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds context about A-Z letters and navigation purpose, which is useful. Baseline 4 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 description clearly states 'Get the count of dream symbols available for each letter A-Z', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dreams_symbols by focusing on alphabetical 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 implies usage context: 'Build alphabetical dream dictionary navigation to help users browse dream interpretations by letter'. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the use case is clear.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that each request returns different symbols from a large database and can return multiple interpretations. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or whether the results are deterministic per request.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like lists of use cases but is not overly long. Minor redundancy ('dream of the day features, dream journaling prompts') but overall efficient.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and common use cases. It could optionally mention the return format, but for a random retrieval tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema already fully describes the count parameter with default, limits, and description. The description adds context about the 2,000+ database and use cases but does not enhance understanding of the parameter itself 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 clearly states the tool returns random dream symbols and their interpretations, with specific use cases like dream of the day and journaling. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_dreams_symbols for non-random access) through the 'random' keyword and emphasis on unpredictability.

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 lists several appropriate use cases (dream of the day, journaling, meditation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like get_dreams_symbols_id. However, the context from sibling names and the tool name itself provides implicit guidance.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses seeded randomness, reproducibility, and return of symbol with interpretation. It does not mention authorization or destructive behavior, but the tool appears non-destructive.

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: first states core purpose, second explains key behavior (seeded randomness), third lists use cases. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but description specifies return includes symbol with full psychological interpretation. Both parameters are fully described in context. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds valuable context: explains the purpose of seed for reproducibility and date for past/future readings, with examples. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 it provides a single dream symbol for daily reflection, using seeded randomness. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_dreams_symbols_random by emphasizing reproducible daily symbols.

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 explicitly describes use cases (dream journal apps, wellness platforms) and gives guidance on seed usage for reproducibility. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context is clear.

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