Fetch one document from kapoost's vault by slug. Requires Authorization: Bearer . Friend tokens: vault-side filter enforces scope + access:private invisibility — an out-of-scope or private slug returns not_found. Vault offline ⇒ {status:offline}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important runtime behaviors: requires Bearer token, friend token scoping with not_found for out-of-scope/private slugs, and offline response. These are beyond the basic schema. Missing details like edit token access to private documents or invalid-token errors, but given no annotations, this is solid.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds critical info: purpose, auth, and edge-case behavior. No wasted words.
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 tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema. The description explains offline behavior but not the success response format or error behaviors for invalid tokens/edit token access to private items. This leaves some gaps for an agent to understand expected outputs fully.
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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by slug', which maps doc_slug to its concept, but adds no detail about slug format, where to find it, or constraints. This is minimal semantic value; the description does not sufficiently clarify the parameter beyond its name.
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 fetches a single document by slug from a specific resource ('kapoost's vault'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list or search by focusing on one document and requiring a slug. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'document' are specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage: when you have a document slug and the proper authorization token. It also clarifies friend token limitations and offline behavior, which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.