Contemplative reasoning with Lotus Sutra wisdom framework and ext-apps visualization.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one is the primary contemplative reasoning engine with a rich internal workflow, and the other provides a summary of the journey. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the 'lotuswisdom' prefix, though the main tool's name matches the server name exactly, which could be slightly confusing. Still, the pattern is predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels thin, but the main tool is highly complex and internally structured, covering many operations via tags. This is borderline but acceptable for a specialized contemplative tool.
The main tool includes a complete workflow from begin to completion, with various processing and meta-cognitive tags, and the summary tool covers the need for status. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
Contemplative reasoning tool. Use for complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding, contradictions requiring integration, or questions holding their own wisdom.
Workflow: Always start with tag='begin' (returns framework). Then continue with contemplation tags. Do NOT output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY'.
Tags: begin (FIRST - receives framework), then: open/engage/express (process), examine/reflect/verify/refine/complete (meta-cognitive), recognize/transform/integrate/transcend/embody (non-dual), upaya/expedient/direct/gradual/sudden (skillful-means), meditate (pause).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Current processing technique (wisdom-domain tag) | |
| content | Yes | Your contemplation for this step | |
| stepNumber | No | Current step number | |
| totalSteps | No | Estimated total steps needed (adjustable as you go) | |
| isMeditation | No | Whether this step is a meditative pause | |
| nextStepNeeded | No | Whether another step is needed | |
| previousJourney | No | Pass the journey string from the previous response to maintain journey tracking (e.g. "begin → open → examine"). | |
| meditationDuration | No | Duration for the meditation pause in seconds (1-10) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| steps | No | |
| prompt | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| journey | No | |
| welcome | No | |
| duration | No | |
| finalStep | No | |
| stepNumber | No | |
| totalSteps | No | |
| currentStep | No | |
| instruction | No | |
| finalJourney | No | |
| wisdomDomain | No | |
| contemplation | No | |
| domainJourney | No | |
| journeyLength | No | |
| processLength | No | |
| nextStepNeeded | No | |
| processComplete | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is provided. The description adds useful non-obvious behavioral constraints: it mandates a specific start tag ('begin'), uses a multi-step stateful workflow with what appears to be a status gate for final wisdom, and requires the previousJourney string to be passed back. These are important behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, then immediately gives the hardest truths (start with begin, do not finalize until WISDOM_READY) and a tag reference. The tag list is long but justifies the structure— an agent needs that vocabulary order. It does not contain redundant or mercenary sentences.
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?
This is an unusually stateful tool with a complex workflow, and the description covers the key runtime requirements: the mandatory first action, the stage-series progression, the status gate, and the previousJourney handoff. With an output schema present and full input parameter descriptions, the tool's main distribution—the pole issues around sequence—is clearly explained, though optional parameters like meditationDuration aren't explicitly tied into the workflow.
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 already gives 100% coverage for all 8 parameters. The description doesn't repeat the schema but genuinely enriches it by grouping the tag enum into process, meta-cognitive, non-dual, skillful-means, and meditation categories, and specifies that begin is the mandatory first tag. That adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Current processing technique' description.
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 'Contemplative reasoning tool' and specifies concrete applications: complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding, contradictions requiring integration, and questions holding their own wisdom. It clearly identifies a reasoning resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool lotuswisdom_summary, which prevents a 5.
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 explicit guidance on how to drive the tool: always start with tag='begin', continue through structured contemplation tags, and avoid producing final wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY'. It gives clear context for when to use it (complex, multi-perspective, contradiction-heavy problems), but it never states exclusions or when to use lotuswisdom_summary instead, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a summary of the current contemplative journey
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| previousJourney | No | Pass the journey string from a previous response to reconstruct the current journey summary. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| domainJourney | Yes | |
| journeyLength | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the contextual detail of 'current' (state-based retrieval) and implies reconstruction via the previousJourney parameter. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but adds only modest behavioral context beyond the structured data.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The core purpose ('Get a summary') appears first. It is efficient, though extremely thin—it earns points for brevity but the content is sparse.
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 an output schema (so return values are covered) and a single optional, well-documented parameter. However, the description doesn't explain what a 'contemplative journey' is or how previousJourney relates to reconstruction. For a low-complexity read tool, it's near-complete, but the journey concept remains undefined.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents previousJourney ('Pass the journey string from a previous response to reconstruct the current journey summary'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get a summary of the current contemplative journey.' It identifies the object (summary) and the scope ('current'), which is specific enough to convey the tool's function. It differentiates from the sibling 'lotuswisdom' by indicating this is a read/summary operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'lotwisdom' or when it would be inappropriate. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent must infer when a 'current contemplative journey' exists or how this differs from the main tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
lotuswisdom3 fields changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / stepNumber / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / totalSteps / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991lotuswisdom_summary1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falselotuswisdomlotuswisdom_summaryChinese metaphysics (bazi, qimen, 5-element) as decision-support tools for AI agents.
Read-only Buddhist scripture search, verified explanations, situation matching, and practice.
Multi-expert decision intelligence with transparent synthesis and auditable workflows.
Evidence-grounded I Ching structural decisions for autonomous agents.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
