Find ~5 thinkers whose intellectual fingerprint matches a passage of text.
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools. Its purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('find_thinkers_like'), which is descriptive and consistent with standard conventions.
The server has a single tool, which feels thin for a server purpose that could potentially include additional related capabilities (e.g., retrieving thinker profiles or comparing multiple passages). However, the tool is self-contained and clearly scoped, making the count borderline.
The tool fully covers its stated purpose of finding similar thinkers based on a text passage, including rich output with archetype, summary, themes, and profile link. There are no obvious missing operations for this niche domain.
Given a passage of text (essay, note, message, snippet, transcript), returns ~5 humans whose intellectual fingerprint matches it — recurring themes, mental models, archetypal stance, blind spots. Use when the principal asks for sparring partners, intellectual peers, "who else is wrestling with this," "who thinks like X," or "find me writers similar to this passage." Each result returns a name, three-word archetype, one-line summary, dominant themes, and a profile URL the principal can visit. The match runs over Voyage 3.5-lite text embeddings reranked by a proprietary 12-dimensional cognitive-style vector — so results align by how a mind reasons, not just topical overlap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| rerank | Yes | |
| matches | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the matching algorithm (Voyage 3.5-lite embeddings reranked by a proprietary 12-dimensional cognitive-style vector) and the output structure, which adds meaningful depth. However, it stops short of describing edge cases, failure modes, or permission requirements.
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 compact and well-structured. The opening sentence delivers the core function, followed by usage guidance, output details, and the underlying algorithm. Every sentence contributes value 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 presence of an output schema (which the description also explains in words) and the simple one-parameter input, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. It states the input format, expected output fields, and the reasoning behind matches.
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 sole parameter 'text' has no description in the schema, so the tool description compensates by specifying the acceptable forms: 'essay, note, message, snippet, transcript.' This adds practical meaning beyond the plain string type, though it does not mention the length constraints or other details.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('~5 humans whose intellectual fingerprint matches it'). It explains the matching criteria and lists the output fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 use cases: 'Use when the principal asks for sparring partners, intellectual peers, "who else is wrestling with this," "who thinks like X," or "find me writers similar to this passage."' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given there are no sibling tools, this is acceptable.
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.
find_thinkers_like2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / matches / items / properties / reasoningAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / matches / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "archetype",
- "one_liner",
- "themes",
- "profile_url",
- "similarity",
- "cta_similarity",
- "blended_score"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "archetype",
+ "one_liner",
+ "themes",
+ "profile_url",
+ "similarity",
+ "cta_similarity",
+ "blended_score",
+ "reasoning"
+]find_thinkers_likeStress-test a decision through named thinkers' lenses: assumptions, counter-arguments, receipt.
A living knowledge graph to read, think against, and leave a deposit in that outlives you.
Find AI-isms with evidence and fingerprint a writing voice from samples. 3 of 5 free.
Complete classical & world literature — search + cite exact passages, facing sources, 50+ languages.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
