get_nowReturn what Cameron is currently working on, learning, building, reading, and up to in life — the live /now page sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a live page with sections, indicating the content is dynamic and structured. As a read operation with no side effects, this is adequate disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the tool's function 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the absence of parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect: the current focus areas and the live page sections.
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, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
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 uses the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource (Cameron's current focus) and lists the categories (working on, learning, building, reading) plus the live /now page sections. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_about or get_reading.
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 the tool is for retrieving current focus information, which is a distinct scenario from siblings like get_about or list_posts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (about, now, post, project, pulse, reading, posts, projects, search results, contact, newsletter) and action (get, list, search, submit, subscribe). The two search tools explicitly differentiate by exact substring vs semantic vector search, removing any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for single item retrieval, list_* for collections, search_* for search, and submit_*/subscribe_* for actions. No mixed conventions or style deviations.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a portfolio site. It covers content access (posts, projects, reading), personal info (about, now), live stats, search, and user interactions (contact, newsletter) without being bloated or sparse.
The tool surface fully covers the public-facing domain of a portfolio site: all content types are retrievable in both list and detail forms, search is provided via two complementary methods, and transactional actions for contact and newsletter subscription are included. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the intended read-oriented purpose.