9-axis-human-sonar-mcp

sonar_map_transcript

Map a transcript across 9 axes, returning per-axis presence, fidelity, coherence, composite, verdict, plus thin and defended axis lists and strongest/weakest axes.

Instructions

Map a transcript across the 9 axes (7 primes + substrate + theta). Returns per-axis presence, fidelity, coherence, composite, verdict; plus thin/defended axis lists and strongest/weakest.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "sonar_map_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Raw transcript. Speaker-prefixed lines (COACH: ..., CLIENT: ...) or plain text.
`focus`	No	Optional speaker label to analyse. Auto-detects the wordiest speaker if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (mapping/analysis) and specifies what it returns (per-axis metrics, lists). It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but the operation is clearly non-destructive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently lists return values. No filler or unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (9 axes) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the return structure (presence, fidelity, etc.) and lists. It omits examples or formats but covers key outputs.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds context about the tool's output but does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Map a transcript across the 9 axes') and specifies the return values, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools (sonar_export, sonar_next_probe), which would merit a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only explains what the tool does, lacking explicit usage context.

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

Deploy Server