Skip to main content
Glama
sassyconsultingllc

SassyMCP

Official
by sassyconsultingllc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

sassy_hooks_suggest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scores user requests against hook trigger phrases to rank and suggest the best matching hook. Returns top match or advises proceeding without a playbook when no hook fits.

Instructions

Read-only. user_text is the user's request in free text (required); the tool scores it against each hook's trigger phrases and returns ranked matching hooks, the top_match name, and a hint naming the hook to consider activating. Returns an empty suggestion list with a note to proceed without a playbook when nothing matches. Use when you are unsure which hook applies or proactively when a request sounds like a known domain; then call sassy_hooks_activate with the top match.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_textYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.15.1
    • addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +true
    • removedOutput schema / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "title": "Result",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
    • changedOutput schema / title
      Previous value: -"sassy_hooks_suggestOutput"New value: +"sassy_hooks_suggestDictOutput"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context: it returns ranked hooks, a top_match, and a hint, and specifies the empty-list behavior with a note to proceed without a playbook. This enriches what the annotations alone convey without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loads the read-only nature, then covers the core behavior, output, edge case, and usage guidance in three sentences. No filler; every sentence earns its place. Structure is logical and scannable.

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 one parameter, an output schema (implicitly providing return structure), and clear annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: input semantics, output composition, empty-result handling, and when to use it. The reference to the sibling activation tool ties it into the workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single parameter. It explains user_text as 'the user's request in free text (required)' – sufficient to convey the meaning and that it's free-form. While it doesn't give format examples, the description compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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?

The description states a specific verb (scores), resource (hooks), and outcome (returns ranked matching hooks, top_match, hint). It clearly distinguishes from sassy_hooks_activate by describing its role as a precursor. It also covers the empty-result edge case, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use when you are unsure which hook applies or proactively when a request sounds like a known domain.' It then directs the agent to call sassy_hooks_activate with the top match, naming the next step. This is direct and actionable, with no inference needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools