Ask a persona to write a lesson-for-self after a rolled-back narada recommendation. Appends to the persona's journal via Sonnet/Haiku. Owner-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| narada_id | Yes | ||
| persona_slug | Yes | ||
| error_context | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core mutation (appends to the persona's journal) and the owner-only permission, but does not elaborate on reversibility, side effects, or whether the operation is synchronous. This is adequate but not detailed.
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 compact sentences that front-load the main action and then provide the effect and permission. No wasted words; every sentence contributes value.
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 sparse annotations, so the description carries the burden. It covers purpose, trigger, effect, and permission, but omits parameter meanings and any note about return values or errors. Adequate for a simple tool, but not fully complete.
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 schema has no descriptions for any of the three required parameters, and the description does not explain them. While the context implies narada_id relates to the recommendation, persona_slug to the persona, and error_context to the rollback reason, the mapping is left to inference. This is a significant gap.
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 action: ask a persona to write a lesson-for-self after a rolled-back narada recommendation. It also specifies the effect (appends to the persona's journal) and a permission constraint (owner-only), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_persona_journal or run_narada.
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 a specific trigger context ('after a rolled-back narada recommendation') and an access restriction ('Owner-only'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
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.