get_allusionsGet detected allusions, echoes, quotations, suspected sources, and translator notes for a work or section where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| work_id | Yes | ||
| section_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| work_id | No | ||
| allusions | No | ||
| author_slug | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that results are available 'where available', but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or performance implications. The description provides minor additional context beyond annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and key resource, making it 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?
Given the 4 parameters, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details on required parameters, pagination behavior, and when allusions may not be available. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description's brevity is partially justified, but more context on usage would improve completeness.
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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'work or section', which loosely explains work_id and section_id, but fails to clarify the required 'author' parameter or the pagination 'limit' parameter. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.
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 that the tool retrieves allusions, echoes, quotations, suspected sources, and translator notes for a work or section. It uses specific verbs ('Get detected') and resources ('allusions...') and is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_work' or 'get_passage'.
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 implies usage when needing allusion data for a work or section, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'search_corpus' or 'find_mentions', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the corpus: general search vs. specific entity search, passage retrieval vs. work metadata, allusions vs. cross-references, etc. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_authors, search_corpus, get_passage) and use snake_case throughout, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool covers a necessary function for a rich text corpus API (search, retrieval, cross-referencing). No tools feel redundant or excessive.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: listing authors/works, searching for passages/entities/Greek phrases/letters, retrieving full passages, work metadata, allusions, crossrefs, parallel texts, citation formatting, and AI evidence pack building. No obvious gaps are present.