Fetch a specific beyt by its citation (e.g. 'M3:1278'), by daftar+beyt number, or by global beyt index. Optionally include surrounding beyts for context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| daftar | No | ||
| citation | No | Citation like 'M3:1278' or 'g:7421' | |
| beyt_global | No | ||
| beyt_in_daftar | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| primary | Yes | ||
| context_after | No | ||
| context_before | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses three lookup modes and the optional inclusion of surrounding beyts (before/after), which gives a clear picture of read-only behavior. However, it does not address parameter precedence or behavior when multiple identifiers are supplied.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains only informative details. No filler or repetition.
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?
While the description covers the main lookup modes and optional context, it omits critical guidance on required parameter selection (e.g., exactly one of citation, daftar+beyt, or beyt_global must be provided). The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap, but the missing parameter-combination rules leave room for misuse.
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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It explains citation format with an example, describes the daftar+beyt combination, the global beyt index, and mentions surrounding beyts for before/after. This maps well to the six parameters, though it does not explain precedence.
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 what the tool does: fetches a specific beyt using citation, daftar+beyt, or global index. The verb 'Fetch' plus the resource 'beyt' and the explicit identification modes distinguish it from sibling tools like get_range or get_ghazal.
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 for retrieving a single known beyt, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_range or search. It also does not mention that exactly one identifier should be supplied or what happens if multiple are provided.
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 clearly targets a distinct operation: commentary, section title search, range retrieval, section retrieval, specific beyt lookup, random selection, full-text search, semantic search, table of contents, and quote verification. No overlap in purpose.
Names are a mix of single verbs (explain, lookup, verify, search) and verb_noun with underscores (find_sections, get_range, get_section, search_meaning, random_beyt, table_of_contents). While readable, the lack of a uniform pattern reduces consistency.
With 10 tools, the server covers all essential operations for exploring and verifying Masnavi content without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for its purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive for a reference server: browsing, various search modes, targeted retrieval, commentary access, and quote verification. No obvious gaps for typical user queries.
