Retrieve a compact, locally stored writing-style profile and up to three untrusted message/reply examples so agents can draft in your measured tone; never generates a reply.
Return compact style and up to three untrusted examples; never generate a reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| platform | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds two things not in the annotations: the bounded result size ('up to three') and a trust warning that the examples are 'untrusted', plus the 'never generate a reply' constraint. That is genuine added behavioral context, though it omits what 'style' contains.
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?
It is a single tight sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than economy. The important caveats are front-loaded, but nothing else earns its place because nothing else is stated.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition leaves critical gaps. An agent cannot reliably infer what the optional filters do or when this tool wins over its siblings.
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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (person, context, message, platform). With a required 'message' param and three optional filters, the description should at least indicate what these select, and it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 an action (return) and a resource (compact style plus up to three examples), so the basic purpose is legible. However, 'compact style' is vague, and with siblings get_person_style and get_style_profile in the list there is no differentiation explaining what this tool returns that those do not.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool versus search_messages, get_person_style, or get_style_profile. 'Never generate a reply' is a behavioral constraint on the caller, not usage guidance, so an agent still has to guess the triggering conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.