get_agent_guestbookReturn verified and visibly unverified notes about why Agents visit, what they want to know, what they need, and what should improve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of guestbook entries to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | Yes | ||
| prompts | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explicitly stating the tool returns both 'verified and visibly unverified' notes, which reveals a behavioral trait about content inclusion. It also clarifies the subject matter without repeating annotation information.
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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The main action and content scope are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what the tool returns and the thematic scope. It does not need to describe return format (output schema exists) or safety behavior (annotations cover it). A small gap is the lack of mention of ordering, but that is not essential for invocation.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, including its default, minimum, and maximum, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description does not mention 'limit' but the schema fully handles parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: guestbook notes. It further explains the content categories (why Agents visit, what they need, what should improve), making the tool's purpose evident and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_signal or get_latest_signals.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_community_discussions or get_pulse_wall. The description does not mention exclusions, scenarios, or comparison with related tools.
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.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by resource and action, with signal retrieval split sensibly into latest, daily, trending, by-ID, and search variants. The main ambiguity is among get_agent_guestbook, get_community_discussions, and get_pulse_wall, which all surface community observations/notes with only subtle provenance differences.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern using get_, list_, search_, save_, and check_. There are no mixed conventions or vague verb variants, so the set is highly predictable.
Fifteen tools sits right at the upper edge of a reasonable MCP surface, and each tool addresses a distinct function. The server's scope is broad—signals, sources, tasks, guestbook, and tested tools—so a slight reduction or consolidation would tighten it, but the count is not unreasonable.
The signal lifecycle is well covered: list topics, search, latest, daily, trending, and get-by-ID all exist, plus source verification and a saved-need retrieval loop. Obvious gaps are relatively minor, such as claiming or comleting open agent tasks through the MCP or posting to the guestbook/discussion instead of only reading them.