Full-text search (BM25 over SQLite FTS5) on kapoost's local vault corpus. Requires Authorization: Bearer . Friend tokens see only their scoped doc_types; access:private is invisible. Returns {status, results:[{source, type, body, doc_slug, title, page, citation}], summary}. Vault offline ⇒ {status:offline}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| doc_slug | No | ||
| doc_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses auth bearer token types (edit or friend), friend-token scoping (only their scoped doc_types, access:private invisible), the exact return structure ({status, results:[...], summary}), and the offline behavior ({status:offline}). This is exceptional transparency.
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?
Three sentences pack a dense yet well-organized spec: purpose, auth/scoping, return structure, and offline behavior. There is zero filler, and all claims earn their place.
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 covers auth, scoping, output structure, and the offline error state, which is impressive given there is no annotations or output schema. However, complete parameter documentation is absent for a 4-parameter tool, so the description is not fully complete on its own.
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 input schema has four parameters with zero descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. It never mentions limit, doc_slug, doc_type, or query's specific role beyond the general search concept. The agent is left to infer parameter meanings from names alone, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 opens with 'Full-text search (BM25 over SQLite FTS5) on kapoost's local vault corpus,' which specifies the exact operation (search), technology (BM25/FTS5), and target resource (kapoost vault). It also differentiates from sibling tools like mysloodsiewnia_list and mysloodsiewnia_get by emphasizing full-text semantic search rather than listing/retrieval.
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 indicates the tool is for full-text search of the corpus, providing clear context for when to use it. It includes authorization requirements and friend-token scoping rules, which are critical for safe invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of a complete usage guide.
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.