get a persona by ID with analysis details and writing samples
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_persona"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | persona ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response carries analysis details and writing samples, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID or the volume of sample content returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and return payload are stated up front. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than being wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so only at a high level ('analysis details and writing samples'). For a simple single-GET tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response shape and error behavior.
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% and there is only one parameter, whose 'persona ID' meaning and uuid format are fully documented in the schema. 'by ID' in the description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('get a persona by ID') plus a scope qualifier ('with analysis details and writing samples'), so an agent can distinguish it from list_personas and get_audience. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings or stating what it does not cover.
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?
'by ID' implies a single-record lookup, which implicitly steers the agent away from listing tools, but there is no stated when-to-use or when-not guidance. No alternative (e.g. analyze_persona, get_audience) is referenced.
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.