Full AI-writing-tells report: score, every matched tell with example sentences, style stats (em-dash rate, rule-of-three, sentence-length uniformity). Deterministic, no LLM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | text to analyze |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that analysis is deterministic and does not use an LLM, but it omits input limits, performance expectations, and the read-only nature of the operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the report contents without filler. Every clause 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?
For a one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear inventory of what the report includes and notes determinism. It is largely complete, though it could state that it is read-only or clarify comparison with the 'aitells' sibling.
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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('text to analyze'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.
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 this produces a 'Full AI-writing-tells report' with score, matched tells, examples, and style stats. It is specific about contents and implies differentiation from the sibling 'aitells' tool via 'Full', though it does not name the sibling 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?
Usage is implied: this is the comprehensive report option versus a presumably lighter 'aitells' sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no direct reference to alternatives.
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.