create a new persona for AI content generation tone/style
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "create_persona"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | persona name (1-100 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of side effects, whether the new persona starts in a draft state requiring finalize_persona, or what happens on duplicate names — all meaningful for a mutation tool in a multi-step persona workflow.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though the lowercase sentence fragment and lack of any structural cues keeps it from being a model of clarity.
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 creation tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits the two things an agent would most want — what gets returned (persona id/handle) and the lifecycle step that must follow creation.
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% and the single 'name' parameter is fully documented with its 1-100 character bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the name — e.g. uniqueness or how tone/style is later supplied via update_persona.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('create a new persona') and adds why the resource exists ('for AI content generation tone/style'), which an agent can map onto siblings like update_persona or finalize_persona. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing creation from the other persona lifecycle tools, so it is clear but not fully 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the verb itself: nothing says whether a persona must be finalized/analyzed afterwards, whether names must be unique, or when to prefer update_persona over a new create. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
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.