neuron_apply_persona_to_botGive a bot this persona's voice: merges a delimited voice block into the bot's system prompt (idempotent — re-applying or swapping personas replaces it cleanly) and tags the bot's metadata with the persona id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Persona UUID | |
| botId | Yes | Bot UUID to apply the voice to. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the annotations. It claims 'idempotent — re-applying or swapping personas replaces it cleanly', while annotations set idempotentHint to false. This is a direct contradiction, so the score is 1 as per the rules.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Give a bot this persona's voice') followed by concise behavioral details. No filler or redundant content.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's behavior for a simple operation with only two parameters and no output schema. It explains the mutation, idempotency, and metadata tagging. However, it could have explicitly warned about the modifying effect, but that is implied by 'merges' and 'tags'.
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%, with both 'id' and 'botId' clearly described as 'Persona UUID' and 'Bot UUID to apply the voice to'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, not significantly enhancing parameter understanding.
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 function: 'Give a bot this persona's voice' and explains the mechanism ('merges a delimited voice block into the bot's system prompt' and 'tags the bot's metadata with the persona id'). This is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like build_persona or update_bot.
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 clear context for when to use (applying a persona's voice to a bot) and the idempotency note ('re-applying or swapping personas replaces it cleanly') guides usage for repeated or swapping scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one.
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 separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.