Initialize your local Psyro tracker on first install by choosing default protocols or defining custom ones for routine and habit tracking.
Run this ON FIRST INSTALL. Ask user: 'Do you want to use default Psyro protocols or create your own?'. Use this tool to initialize the local tracker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| useDefault | Yes | True to use Psyro8-t defaults | |
| customProtocols | No | List of custom protocols if useDefault is false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool 'initializes the local tracker' but does not disclose side effects, state changes, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'ON FIRST INSTALL' condition. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple initialization call given the schema covers parameters, but it omits behavioral context such as what 'initialize' entails, whether it overwrites existing data, or what happens if already initialized. This leaves some uncertainty for the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The tool description only paraphrases the choice between default and custom protocols without adding new semantic detail, meeting the baseline expectation for schema-rich coverage.
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: to initialize the local tracker, and explicitly conditions its use on 'ON FIRST INSTALL'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_protocols by being the setup step, though it does not name an alternative directly.
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?
Provides an explicit trigger condition ('Run this ON FIRST INSTALL') and a concrete instruction to ask the user about default vs custom protocols. This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.