Read-only liveness probe on kapoost's local vault (mysłoodsiewnia). Returns {status: online|degraded|offline, last_seen, commit_sha, personas_updated_at, skills_updated_at}. Offline is a stable state — retry later, don't escalate. Requires Authorization: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, lists the exact return fields, explains offline semantics, and specifies the required Authorization header. This is comprehensive for a status probe.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential information: what it does, what it returns, one critical behavioral note, and the auth requirement. No waste.
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 parameterless status tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the output shape, gives offline behavior guidance, and notes auth. However, it does not explain the meaning of the 'degraded' status, which is a minor gap in the status enum semantics.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't.
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 as a 'read-only liveness probe' on a specific vault, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get, list, search, and write by focusing on health/status rather than data operations.
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 use as a liveness probe and gives important behavioral guidance ('Offline is a stable state — retry later, don't escalate'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over sibling status-related operations, so it misses the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.
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.