Gain insight into any question by drawing a past-present-future tarot spread. Each card position returns a tailored interpretation to guide your decision.
Draw a past-present-future three-card tarot spread. Returns interpretations for each position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | No | The question to focus the reading on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns interpretations per position, which is useful, but it does not explain the draw mechanism (e.g., randomness, deck source) or mention potential limitations. For a simple read-only divination tool, the disclosure is adequate but minimal.
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 concise sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information: what the tool draws and what it returns.
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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, no enums, no output schema. The description covers the essential return behavior ('interpretations for each position') and is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It does not detail the exact response shape, but for a single-purpose tarot spread this is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%: the sole parameter 'question' already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Draw'), a specific resource ('past-present-future three-card tarot spread'), and states the outcome ('Returns interpretations for each position'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like draw_random_card, which lacks the three-position structure, and yes_no_reading, which provides a binary answer.
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 clearly implies the intended use case: a structured three-card reading with temporal positions. It provides clear context for when to choose this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, leaving a small gap in routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.