get_passageGet an exact passage by author, work ID, and section ID. Include the returned url as a link when using the passage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| author | Yes | ||
| work_id | Yes | ||
| section_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| date | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| work_id | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| section_id | 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, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the instruction about the URL. No disclosure of rate limits, auth needs, or what happens if the passage is not found.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second gives a direct usage instruction. No unnecessary words; efficient and well-structured.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about domain specifics (e.g., classical texts) and prerequisites for using the identifiers. With many sibling tools, more guidance on tool selection 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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description names the three parameters (author, work_id, section_id) but gives no details about their format, valid values, or constraints. This is barely above baseline.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'passage', specifying the three identifiers (author, work_id, section_id) required for an exact retrieval. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_work or get_parallel_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 provides a usage instruction ('Include the returned url as a link when using the passage'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.
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.