The canon as concentric layers — the undisputed 66 that all major traditions share, plus the books held BEYOND it by particular traditions, each framed on its own layer and never merged. REPORTS who holds what with the history; does not judge which canon is correct. Pass book for one book's status; else the overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description takes on the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool 'does not judge which canon is correct' and that layers are 'never merged,' offering concrete behavioral insights. The use of 'REPORTS' implies a read-only operation, adding transparency beyond a simple action listing.
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, but the opening sentence is dense with metaphorical language ('concentric layers,' 'undisputed 66,' 'never merged'). All details are relevant and aid understanding, though the phrasing could be more direct for quicker parsing. It is concise overall but not as streamlined as the highest-caliber examples.
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?
Given a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose, the parameter's behavior, and its non-judgmental approach. It does not detail the exact structure of the report, but for a reporting tool with this simplicity, the provided context is sufficient for basic understanding and invocation. The absence of annotations is offset by the description's explicit behavioral statements.
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 input schema lists a single optional 'book' field with no description (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that passing a book returns its status, while omitting it yields the overview. This directly clarifies the parameter's meaning and default behavior, which is essential for correct invocation.
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: reporting on the canon as concentric layers, including the shared 66 books and tradition-specific additions. The verb 'REPORTS' and the optional per-book status make the purpose specific and understandable, distinguishing it from other tools despite the metaphorical phrasing.
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 provides guidance on using the 'book' parameter ('Pass book for one book's status; else the overview') and alludes to the tool's non-judgmental nature. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions among the sibling tools, leaving the selection context implied 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.
Several tools are near-duplicates: read_passage and resolve both fetch WEB text for a reference; word_study already includes every occurrence that word_occurrences returns; coach_next and coach_recommend both answer 'what's next.' Search/locate/cards_browse also overlap as discovery entry points, making tool selection ambiguous despite detailed descriptions.
Most names follow an object_verb snake_case pattern (cards_browse, study_create, seal_fetch), but there are many bare verbs/nouns (ask, audit, resolve, verify, canon, harmony) and inconsistent singular/plural pairs (card_get vs cards_browse, group_create vs groups_list, want_open vs wants_list). No camelCase, but the convention is not uniform.
86 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range; even a broad platform would be hard for an agent to navigate. Many tools belong to unrelated subdomains (coach, steward, mesh, calendar), making the surface unwieldy.
The want/offer flow has no accept/close tool, so an agent can open a want and offer a source but never see it resolved. Group and calendar coverage are one-directional (create/join only; no leave/delete/list/update), and there is no badge listing or way to update a study group. Core reading/verification/shelf flows are solid, but lifecycle gaps remain.