get_dailyThe Hayom Yom entry for a civil date (default: today in Jerusalem). Hayom Yom is the Rebbe's calendar of daily Chassidus teachings, one short entry per Hebrew calendar day. Note: the Jewish day begins at nightfall, so after dark the next day's entry applies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Civil date, YYYY-MM-DD. Default: today in Jerusalem. | |
| language | No | Entry language: en, he, es, fr, ru, yi. Default en. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already communicates readOnlyHint=true, so the main risk is handled. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the Jewish day starts at nightfall, so after dark the next day's entry applies. This is a genuine behavioral disclosure not present in the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: one for the core action, one for domain context, and one for a critical temporal caveat. The most important operational note is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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?
For a read-only, no-required-parameter lookup tool with fully documented schema fields, the description covers the essential selection and invocation knowledge: what it returns, what the default is, and the one behavior that could surprise an agent (nightfall boundary). No output schema exists, but 'one short entry per Hebrew calendar day' sufficiently signals the return nature.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by clarifying that the date is a civil date and by explaining how the Hebrew-calendar day boundary (nightfall) affects which entry is returned, going beyond the schema's 'YYYY-MM-DD' hint.
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 names a specific resource ('the Hayom Yom entry') and a clear operation ('get for a civil date'), then explains what Hayom Yom is. This uniquely distinguishes it from siblings like get_lesson or get_source_text, which target different content.
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 gives clear context: the tool is for retrieving a specific daily Chassidus entry, with a civil date and a Jerusalem default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
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 resource or action: catalog discovery, lesson search, source search, lesson retrieval, text retrieval, audio retrieval, daily entry, and Q&A. The two search tools are explicitly separated by corpus (site lessons vs classical sources), and ask is distinct from search by returning grounded answers with citations.
Seven tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_lessons, get_source_text, list_books, etc.). The single tool named 'ask' is a minor deviation from the verb_noun convention, but it is short and understandable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a Torah learning library. Each tool has a distinct job, and there is no redundant or filler surface.
The surface covers discovery (list_books), searching (search_lessons, search_sources), retrieval (get_lesson, get_source_text, get_audio, get_daily), and synthesis (ask). This is a read-only content domain, so CRUD operations are not expected; no obvious dead ends remain.