persona_listFree. Your saved Personas (reference photos of one person, up to 5).
Returns: {ok, personas:[{id, name, notes, photo_count, photo_urls, consent_at}]}
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "persona_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description does add real value by stating "Free" (no credits consumed) and the 5-persona cap. It does not cover ordering, pagination (none, given the cap), or behavior when the list is empty.
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?
Two short blocks: a one-line purpose with the cost and cap front-loaded, then an explicit return shape. The "Free." fragment is terse but earns its place as a decision-relevant fact.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the burden well by spelling out the exact return object including field names. An empty-result case is the only notable omission.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4; nothing in the schema requires compensation. The description usefully notes the implicit scope — the user's own saved personas only.
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?
"Your saved Personas (reference photos of one person, up to 5)" identifies the resource and defines what a persona actually is, which is genuinely useful domain context. The only weakness is the absence of an explicit verb ("list"), though the possessive phrasing plus sibling names persona_create/persona_delete make the read intent obvious.
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 rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this to enumerate personas before referencing one by id in a generation call. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of how it relates to persona_create or persona_stage, and no prerequisite notes.
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.