get_source_textFetch the classical source text a lesson is built on (Mishnah, Shulchan Aruch, Tanya), vocalized, in full. These are public-domain texts via Sefaria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | A lesson slug; returns the source text that lesson teaches. |
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 annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the text is public-domain via Sefaria, vocalized, and returned in full. It does not disclose failure behavior or payload size, but for a read-only fetch that is acceptable.
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 tight sentences, with the core action and scope in the first sentence and licensing context in the second. Every word contributes; no fluff 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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (full vocalized classical text) and its provenance (Sefaria public domain). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 single parameter 'slug' is already documented clearly. The description reinforces the concept of a 'lesson' but adds no new parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specifies the verb 'fetch,' the resource ('classical source text a lesson is built on'), and even names example texts (Mishnah, Shulchan Aruch, Tanya). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_lesson or get_audio without needing to inspect their schemas.
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 usage is implied: if you need the full source text underlying a lesson, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., search_sources, get_lesson), so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.
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.