Browse the Masnavi's section list. Returns titled sections per daftar with beyt counts and ranges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daftar | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | Yes | ||
| daftar | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (titled sections per daftar with counts and ranges) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any pagination limits, or effects of omitting the daftar parameter. For a simple browse tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit safety context.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, the incomplete parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance leave gaps in what the agent needs to know for correct invocation, preventing a higher score.
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 compensate. It mentions 'per daftar' but does not explain valid values (integer 1-6 or null) or what null/default means. The parameter's behavior is left ambiguous, forcing the agent to infer from the tool name.
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's function: 'Browse the Masnavi's section list' and details the output: 'Returns titled sections per daftar with beyt counts and ranges.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_section or find_sections.
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 use for browsing the table of contents, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. No direct comparison with sibling tools like find_sections or get_range is provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
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.
