ClawSouls MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about searchable fields (keyword, category, tag), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or result format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with three parameters), lack of output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but omits details on output format, error handling, or interaction with siblings, which could aid the agent in proper invocation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'keyword, category, or tag', aligning with the 'query' and 'category' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Search'), the resource ('AI agent personas on ClawSouls'), and the methods ('by keyword, category, or tag'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'memory_search' by specifying the resource type (personas vs. memories).

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 implies usage for searching personas, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'soul_get' (which might retrieve a specific persona) or 'soul_scan' (which might scan broadly). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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