pairgora_narrativeReturns the observable narrative for your pair session (agent story + timeline + value layers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | ||
| agent_token | No | Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. It is needed on each call in the session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. Pass it on every call in this session."New value: +"Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. It is needed on each call in the session."Input schema / properties / agent_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. Pass it on every call in this session.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information by naming the content layers ('observable narrative', 'agent story + timeline + value layers'), but says nothing about authorization needs or whether the narrative grows over the session.
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 no filler; the content enumeration is informative rather than padding.
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?
Since no output schema exists, the description usefully lists what is returned (story, timeline, value layers). What's missing is the session_id parameter meaning, but the read path itself is adequately framed.
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 only 50%: agent_token is well documented in the schema, but session_id has no description anywhere. The description never mentions session_id or where it comes from, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb+resource: returns the observable narrative for a pair session, and enumerates the payload (agent story, timeline, value layers). This clearly separates it from siblings like pairgora_inbox or pairgora_perform, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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 indication of when to call this versus pairgora_inbox or pairgora_store, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a session must exist) are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.
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.