Skip to main content
Glama

humanMCP — kapoost

by io.github.kapoost

prepare_narada

Offline narada: returns the panel plus each persona's ready-to-run SYSTEM/USER prompts so YOU run them as your own subagents, instead of the server generating voices. No LLM cost, no rate limit, nothing recorded — no narada ID and no journal feedback. Prefer this over run_narada when your subagents can read material the server cannot (a repository, local files) or when the server has no API key. Session-gated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYes
personasNoOptional. Explicit persona slugs (from list_personas). When present the keyword manifest is not used. Omit for automatic keyword routing.
session_tokenNoOptional. The SESSION_TOKEN emitted by bootstrap_session. Pass it here when your client cannot set a per-call Authorization: Bearer header.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 key behaviors: no LLM cost, no rate limit, nothing recorded, no narada ID, no journal feedback, and session-gating. This gives the agent a clear safety and side-effect profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add behavioral caveats, then usage guidance. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral side effects. It vaguely references what is returned (panel + prompts) but does not detail the panel structure or how session_token is used beyond 'session-gated'. For a tool with no output schema and a single required param, this is adequate, though a bit more detail on the returned panel would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (personas and session_token are described, context is not). The description adds some meaning by implying 'persona's prompts' relate to the personas param, but it does not explain the required context parameter at all. It sits in the middle range and doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema description of context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'returns the panel plus each persona's ready-to-run SYSTEM/USER prompts'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling run_narada by explaining it runs offline. This is unambiguous and non-tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Prefer this over run_narada when...' explicitly names the alternative and gives concrete conditions (subagents can read server-inaccessible material, or server lacks an API key). It also implies when not to use it, making the routing decision explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All humanMCP — kapoost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources