Dream Interpretation MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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 useful scope context (2,000+ symbols, broad category coverage) but does not disclose extra behavioral details such as pagination behavior, how results are ordered, or how q interacts with letter. This is acceptable but not exceptional given the annotations present.

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 action and resource, and the second sentence gives valuable real-world examples for matching dream topics. It is somewhat long, but the examples help an agent recognize relevant queries; no sentence is tautological or purely redundant.

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?

Combined with a fully documented input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing among sibling tools and how q and letter behave when combined, but this is minor against the strong structured metadata.

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 already well documented (ranges, defaults, case-insensitivity, compact shape semantics). The description only reinforces q and letter usage and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action ('Browse and search'), a resource ('complete dream interpretation dictionary'), and gives concrete examples of content types. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings such as get_dreams_symbols_id or get_dreams_symbols_random, although its broad list/search scope is inferable from the wording.

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 usage context: use keyword search or A-Z letter filtering to find dream meanings. However, it never names alternatives like get_dreams_symbols_id or get_dreams_symbols_letters or states when those should be preferred, leaving tool selection partly to inference.

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 known. The description adds that results contain psychological analysis, emotional significance, and waking-life connections, which gives some context about the response content. It does not cover auth, rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral details, but with annotations present the description does enough to justify a baseline 3 and contains no contradiction.

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 specific and front-loaded, but most of the description is padded with marketing-style content about psychological analysis and a long list of dream themes like snake dreams and falling dreams. That inventory does not help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly and should be removed or drastically shortened. The description overstays its usefulness.

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 read-only lookup with only two parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description plus structured fields are sufficient for correct invocation. The main missing piece, explicit routing among sibling tools, is a usage-guidelines gap rather than a completeness gap. Nothing essential to calling the tool is absent.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented: id's kebab-case format and compact's columnar token-saving behavior. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. There is no gap for the description to compensate for.

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 'Get the complete dream interpretation for a specific symbol,' which names a specific verb and resource and clearly indicates lookup by id. It is distinguishable from list/random siblings by the 'specific symbol' framing, though it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling tools. The long list of dream themes after the opening is promotional rather than scope-defining, so it slightly dilutes the clarity.

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 phrase 'for a specific symbol' plus the required id parameter implies this tool is for looking up one known symbol, and the existence of siblings like get_dreams_symbols_random suggests when it should not be used. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over get_dreams_symbols, get_dreams_symbols_letters, or get_dreams_symbols_random, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is entirely implied rather than stated.

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 signal readOnly and non-destructive, so the description's additional behavior is what matters: each request returns different random symbols, and the tool supports one or multiple interpretations. This clarifies the non-deterministic nature, which is genuinely useful beyond the structured metadata.

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 behavior, but it is somewhat repetitive: 'random dream symbols' appears multiple times, and the use-case list is longer than necessary. It is acceptable but not tight enough to be a model of concise documentation.

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's simplicity, the fully documented parameters, read-only annotations, and existing output schema, the description supplies enough context: what the endpoint returns, how many, and when it is useful. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 count and compact both well documented. The description adds only a general notion of 'one or multiple' but does not improve on the schema's detailed parameter meanings, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's function: returning random dream symbols with interpretations from a 2,000+ symbol database. The word 'random' plus the discovery framing distinguishes it from the sibling lookup tools such as get_dreams_symbols_id, so an agent can tell what this endpoint is for.

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 offers clear use cases like dream-of-the-day features, journaling prompts, and meditation on subconscious themes. However, it never says when not to use this tool or explicitly points to siblings for specific symbol lookups, leaving the alternative selection implied rather than stated.

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.