query_persona_decision"이 사람이라면 어떻게 판단할까?"를 페르소나에게 자문합니다. 응답은 공개 범위의 가치 기준에 따른 권고(자문)일 뿐이며, 이 도구는 결제·전송·기기제어 등 어떤 실제 행동도 절대 수행하지 않습니다(executed:false 고정). 사적·민감 영역 질문은 보류로 응답됩니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | 자문 대상 페르소나 DID | |
| question | Yes | 자문할 질문 (예: '이 제휴 제안을 수락할까요?') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it never performs actions (executed:false), and sensitive questions are held. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses efficient language with no redundant information.
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 query tool with no output schema, the description explains the nature of the response (recommendation) and handles edge cases (sensitive questions). It is fairly complete but could elaborate on the output format.
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 descriptions for both parameters are clear and cover 100% of parameters. The description adds context about the type of question, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 purpose: consulting a persona for judgment advice. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing what it does not do (no real actions) and mentioning that sensitive questions are held.
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 clear guidance for when to use the tool (to get persona advice) and when not (private/sensitive questions result in 'hold'). It explains that the tool does not perform actions, but does not name alternative tools for actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.