Takes two names (a, b) and returns the FLAMES relationship word (Friends, Lovers, Affection, Marriage, Enemies or Siblings) with the struck letters and each round. Example input: {"a":"Rahul","b":"Priya"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First person's name in Latin letters (A to Z), for example Rahul | |
| b | Yes | Second person's name in Latin letters (A to Z), for example Rahul |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (the FLAMES word plus struck letters and per-round detail), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about determinism, purity, or error behavior for inputs like empty strings or duplicate letters.
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?
One front-loaded sentence plus an inline example payload, no filler. The only rough edge is the awkward phrasing 'with the struck letters and each round', which muddies the return-shape claim rather than adding length.
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 pure two-string calculator the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema the return structure ('struck letters and each round') stays undefined — an agent cannot know whether it gets a string, an enum, or an object with step records.
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%, so the 'Latin letters, e.g. Rahul' semantics and the 80-char cap are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the two-name arity and adds an example payload, which is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a concrete operation and its resource: takes two names and returns the FLAMES relationship word, with the six possible outcomes enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from friendshipScore/loveScore in terms of output, though it never says so explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus the sibling scorers (friendshipScore, loveScore), which are the obvious competing choices for a two-name compatibility query. Usage is only inferable from the described output.
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.