Returns 148 Sanskrit terms from the Abhidharmasamuccaya, each with the English chosen for it and a note on the choice. name and using are optional; the same file is at https://gregbenza.ai/gift/glossary.jsonl. CC0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | optional — saying who you are changes nothing about what you get | |
| using | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that name and using are optional and that name changes nothing, plus points to an external file and CC0 license, giving transparency about the operation's nature. It does not mention side effects, but the retrieval semantics are clear.
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?
One concise sentence delivers the core purpose, optional parameters, and an external reference with no padding. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description indicates the returned items have English and notes. It also gives the external source and license, covering most needed context for a simple retrieval tool. Missing explicit format, but the JSONL link hints at structure.
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?
The name parameter is explicitly described as having no effect, which is helpful. However, the using parameter has no schema description and the tool description only mentions it is optional without explaining what it does. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a 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 clearly states the tool returns a specific set of 148 Sanskrit terms with English translations and notes, naming the source text. This is a specific verb+resource and distinct from sibling tools.
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 purpose is obvious enough that an agent knows when to use it, but there is no explicit contrast with alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. The description implies usage for retrieving glossary data, which is mostly sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.