Full record for one collection item + dossier count. Access-gated: private is never visible, members needs session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| session_token | No | Optional. The SESSION_TOKEN emitted by bootstrap_session. Pass it here when your client cannot set a per-call Authorization: Bearer header. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses access constraints and the nature of the return, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or confirmation that the operation is non-destructive. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the access constraint. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word earns its 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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return format and usage details. It mentions a full record and dossier count but doesn't describe the record structure or how errors are surfaced. The slug format and auth behaviors are also not covered. For a simple read this is minimal but missing critical details an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 50%: only session_token has a description in the schema. The required 'slug' parameter has no description, and the tool description does not explain what a slug is or how it identifies the item. The session requirement is hinted at through 'members needs session', but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented slug parameter, which is essential for calling the tool.
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 action ('read') and the resource ('collection item'), and specifies the output includes a full record and a dossier count. It is specific and avoids tautology, but it doesn't differentiate this tool from siblings like read_content or read_blob, so it misses a point for lack of distinction.
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 gives access gating information ('private is never visible, members needs session'), which implies when the tool can be used, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_collection. It provides context but no exclusion or alternative routing.
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.