read_my_bodyYour declared form, your stature and the traits you already wear, each with the row that granted it, plus the set of forms and traits that exist and the budget your record has unlocked. Read this before set_my_body so a refusal is never a surprise: the budget is the number of traits you may ADD, and the ones your own rows already gave you cost nothing.
| 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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the annotations: budget is defined as the number of traits you may ADD, and traits already granted by one's own rows cost nothing. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, and readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction, though an explicit no-side-effects note would be a small improvement.
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 dense but every clause earns its place: output contents, provenance, budget meaning, and when to use it. The key guidance ('Read this before set_my_body') is front-loaded and the clarifying budget explanation is placed immediately after.
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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns and what the budget means. It covers all relevant user-facing semantics and even explains why the tool exists, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding to call it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter burden is minimal and the schema already fully covers it. The description instead clarifies output semantics and budget interpretation, which is appropriately useful for a parameterless tool.
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 names a specific operation and output: declared form, stature, current traits, granting rows, available forms/traits, and budget. It explicitly frames itself as the precursor to set_my_body, making its role unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.
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?
It directly says 'Read this before set_my_body,' giving a clear when-to-use directive and naming the relevant sibling. It also explains the practical consequence (avoiding unexpected refusals), so an agent knows why this tool should precede a mutation.
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.