KSJ MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bridge_dream_research

Check a recorded dream entry for nearby research entries sharing a theme, then prepare a dialogue about the dream's possible symbols.

Instructions

Independently check a Dream Capture entry for cross-domain echo — RC/REV
entries sharing a theme within a few days of the dream — and prepare a
dialogue over what, if anything, the dream's symbols mean to you.

This runs AFTER a DC page exists — never before; there's nothing to
bridge until a dream has actually been recorded. If no DC page is
found, the tool declines. Reuses dream_correlation()'s co-occurrence
data (chain 1: composed, not reimplemented) for the cross-domain-echo
half, so the same non-negotiable guardrails apply here too: these are
plain co-occurrence counts, never "correlation," always reported with
window_days, match count, and base rate.

This tool does NOT write to the database — it prepares the findings
and dialogue instructions for Claude to run in this conversation. Call
`commit_observation()` after the user reviews the outcome, to persist
it. Never changes the DC page's own dream narrative — that stays
physical-authority, exactly like surface_connections never rewrites a
SYN page. The artifact this tool exists to produce is a *noticing*,
not a conclusion — at journal scale this dialogue cannot support
calling its output an inference — and never a restatement of the
dream (already stored) or an asserted claim about what a symbol means
(that's the user's call, always asked, never proposed).

Trigger phrases: "Bridge DC-005 to my research", "What does this dream
connect to?".

Args:
    dc_template_id: The DC page's template ID (e.g. "DC-005").
                    Required — the tool declines if no DC page with
                    this ID exists.
    window_days:    How many days apart counts as "near," for the
                    cross-domain-echo check (default 3).
    depth:          "brief" | "standard" (default) | "deep" — how many
                    follow-up questions per topic to plan for. The
                    user can also say "more on this one" for any
                    single topic regardless of depth.

Returns the dream's own content, cross-domain echoes, and dialogue
instructions for Claude to execute.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`depth`	No	standard
`window_days`	No
`dc_template_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.9.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that it does NOT write to the database, that it reuses dream_correlation()'s co-occurrence data with the same guardrails (window_days, match count, base rate, never 'correlation'), that it never rewrites the DC narrative, and that its output is a 'noticing' not a conclusion or an asserted symbol meaning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and precondition, and nearly every clause carries distinct information. It is long and heavily parenthetical, which adds density and some friction, but the content is not redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: preconditions, guardrails, side-effect profile, persistence follow-up, and a brief return summary. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three params: dc_template_id with an example ('DC-005') and its required/decline behavior, window_days defined as 'how many days apart counts as near' with default 3, and depth enumerated as brief/standard/deep with a default and a 'more on this one' override.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a Dream Capture entry for cross-domain echo') plus the concrete scope (RC/REV entries sharing a theme within a few days) and names the actual product of the tool ('prepare a dialogue'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from dream_correlation by noting it reuses that tool's data rather than duplicating it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition ('runs AFTER a DC page exists — never before'), an explicit failure mode ('if no DC page is found, the tool declines'), explicit follow-up routing ('call commit_observation() after the user reviews the outcome'), and even trigger phrases. When-to-use and when-not are both spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.