Submit an async question to kapoost. Returns an ID. Rate-limited 5/hr/IP. Poll fetch_answer later — kapoost answers on his own schedule (minutes, hours, or days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| question | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the async behavior (returns ID, not an immediate answer), the rate limit (5/hr/IP), the need to poll fetch_answer, and the variable response time (minutes, hours, or days). This is rich, actionable context.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover purpose, return value, rate limit, polling mechanism, and timing. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavioral aspects well—purpose, async flow, rate limiting, and polling. However, it leaves 'from' and 'context' unexplained, which is a notable gap for a tool with such a small parameter set.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It implicitly clarifies 'question' by saying 'Submit an async question', but provides no explanation for 'from' or 'context'. The parameter meanings beyond the names are largely unclear.
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 the specific verb 'Submit' and identifies the resource as 'an async question to kapoost', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like fetch_answer (for polling) and submit_answer (for writing answers). It also mentions returning an ID, which clarifies the output.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Poll fetch_answer later', naming the complementary tool and indicating the async workflow. It also sets expectations that kapoost answers on his own schedule, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.
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 have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but a few boundaries are fuzzy: leave_message vs ask_human vs leave_comment, and list_content vs list_collection could confuse an agent at first glance. Overall, the descriptions are thorough enough to disambiguate.
The naming convention is predominantly snake_case with verb_noun structure (list_content, read_blob, upsert_skill). Minor deviations exist such as the mysloodsiewnia_* prefix and British spelling in synthesise_persona_patterns, but the pattern is highly recognizable and readable.
At 41 tools, the surface area is very large for a single MCP server and exceeds the 'heavy' threshold. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number makes the server feel bloated and harder to navigate; many tools could be grouped or pruned without losing core functionality.
The server covers a broad domain: content read/list, personas, skills management, vault CRUD (except update/delete intentionally), provenance, licensing, memory, and async question/narada workflows. Minor gaps exist like no tool to cancel a narada job or update a memory, but these are workable and the core workflows are well supported.