Return a randomly-selected beyt, optionally restricted to a daftar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daftar | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daftar | Yes | ||
| mesra1 | Yes | First hemistich (with diacritics) | |
| mesra2 | Yes | Second hemistich | |
| citation | Yes | Canonical citation, e.g. 'M3:1278' | |
| section_id | Yes | ||
| beyt_global | Yes | ||
| section_slug | Yes | ||
| section_title | Yes | ||
| beyt_in_daftar | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of randomness and the optional daftar filter, but does not explicitly state side effects (though 'Return' implies read-only) or any preconditions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the core function and the optional parameter.
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?
The description covers the primary function and the optional parameter, and the output schema handles return details. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing edge cases or alternative uses, but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 description explains that the 'daftar' parameter optionally restricts the selection, adding functional meaning beyond the schema's type/range. However, it does not explain what a daftar represents or how the restriction works, leaving some ambiguity.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('randomly-selected beyt'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that perform lookups or searches. The optional daftar restriction further clarifies scope.
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 that this tool is for obtaining a random beyt, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
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.
