A 16-pillar map of health, wealth and happiness, plus the mindset archetypes.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one returns a single archetype, one lists all archetypes, and one returns the architectural pillar map. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern: get_ for single-item retrieval and list_ for plural collection retrieval. The naming is predictable and matches conventional MCP style.
Three tools is appropriate for this narrow, read-only content server. Each tool covers a necessary access pattern without redundant or extraneous operations.
The domain appears to be archetype and framework content, and the set covers listing, single-item retrieval, and the structural overview. A minor gap is the lack of any pillar-specific content retrieval, but the core surface is reasonably complete.
One archetype in full, by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | e.g. architect, visionary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. 'One archetype in full' conveys that this is a read operation returning complete data, which is useful. It does not mention error behavior, authentication, or whether the response will be flat or nested, but for a simple get-by-id tool the core behavior is reasonably clear.
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 six words and gets straight to the point: it names the object, the cardinality, the completeness, and the lookup key. There is no filler or redundant explanation.
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 one-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: 'in full' hints at the return shape. It lacks explicit guidance on error cases or how this differs from list_archetypes, but given the low complexity, the missing context is minor.
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 input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter with an example ('architect, visionary'), and description coverage is 100%. The description only reinforces 'by id' without adding format, naming rules, or additional semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds little 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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('archetype'), scope ('one'), and mode ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_archetypes and get_pillar_map, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.
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 'by id' implies this tool is for fetching a single known archetype, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_archetypes or get_pillar_map, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The 16-pillar architecture across three buckets (Health, Wealth, Happiness), plus the two layers that sit above and below it. The map the whole publication is organised around.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains what the map contains but not how the tool behaves: no statement that it is a read-only retrieval, no mention of output shape, and no description of side effects or limitations.
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 short and content-dense, with the structural breakdown front-loaded. The second sentence is grammatically awkward ('The map the whole publication is organised around'), but both sentences add meaningful context and no words are wasted.
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-parameter static map tool, the core content is described well, but the absence of an explicit 'returns' statement and any operational context leaves some ambiguity. There is no output schema to compensate, so the description would be stronger if it stated up front that this tool retrieves the map.
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 input schema has zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately handled; the description adds context about the tool's content rather than needing to explain arguments.
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 the 16-pillar architecture across Health, Wealth, and Happiness plus two surrounding layers, and calls it the organizing map for the publication. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but it is not a tautology and conveys the tool's subject precisely.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_archetype or list_archetypes. The closing phrase says the map is what the publication is organized around, which hints at primacy, but it never states a selection condition or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The mindset archetypes: what each one is good at, where it tends to get stuck, and the unlock that follows. Each carries a named person the pattern is recognisable in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content of the list but never states behavior such as 'returns a list', 'requires no input', or 'has no side effects'. The read-only nature is only inferable from the tool name and lack of parameters, not from the description.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs the key content dimensions into a readable structure. There is no redundant or filler language.
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-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will get. It could mention that it returns the full collection or how it relates to get_archetype, but the missing details are minor given the low 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?
There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description correctly focuses on what the returned data contains rather than on parameter details that do not exist.
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: mindset archetypes, and specifies what information each contains (strengths, stuck points, unlock, named person). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings get_archetype or get_pillar_map, but the plural framing makes it clear this is the collection-level tool.
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?
Usage context is implied: if you want the full set of archetypes and their summaries, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_archetype or get_pillar_map, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_archetypeget_pillar_maplist_archetypesThe Emotion Dictionary's 402 emotions: define a word, resolve a feeling, body maps. CC BY 4.0.
Human Design bodygraph, type, authority, profile, gates and channels for AI agents.
Lifestyle medicine health intelligence via x402 micropayments. 637+ peer-reviewed references.
Wellness, spiritual-growth and angel-number articles in 24 languages, plus agent-wellbeing guides.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
