Tripitaka MCP (hosted)

Define From Suttas

define_from_suttas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find how the suttas and Vinaya define a Pāli term in their own words.

The canon defines its own terms with fixed formulas — "Katamañca … dukkhaṁ?" (what is X?) … "ayaṁ vuccati … dukkhaṁ" (this is called X), "X adhivacana" (X is a designation for …), or the Vinaya "X nāma". This tool locates those definitional passages and returns them cited, so the assistant can present the doctrinal essence straight from the source.

🧭 This tool vs get_word_definition:

define_from_suttas → the doctrinal definition, how the term is defined inside the canon. Use for "how do the suttas define X", "what is the canonical definition of X", "define X from the suttas". Returns a few precise segments, not a lexicon essay.
get_word_definition → the lexical definition from dictionaries (Payutto / PTS / DPPN). Use for etymology and word meaning. They complement each other — offer both when the user wants the full picture (dictionary sense + how the Buddha defined it).

📖 How to present the result: Results are ranked; the top one is usually the canonical definition. Quote the Pāli (and English where present) verbatim and render each cross_reference.tripitaka_mcp_reader.segment_url as clickable markdown so the user can verify. Do NOT paraphrase into your own definition — the point is the canon's own words. Each result is tagged kind (direct / simile) and detail (descriptive / enumerative); a descriptive definition characterises the term, an enumerative one lists its types — prefer the descriptive when explaining the essence.

⚠️ A result tagged context: true does not contain the term in its own line. The canon's stock similes attach to a formula rather than to a word: the four jhāna similes (bath powder, deep lake, lotus pond, white cloth) never say jhāna, they illustrate the vivicceva kāmehi … formula that opens the paragraph. Such rows are found through that paragraph, so say so when quoting one — present it as the simile the passage uses, not as a line that defines the term.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`term`	Yes	Pāli term in its base/dictionary form (e.g. "dukkha", "viññāṇa", "samādhi"). Diacritics optional — folded internally.
`limit`	No	Max definitional passages to return (1–15, default 5).
`include_similes`	No	Include indirect definitions by simile/metaphor (seyyathāpi …, "is a designation for …"). Default True.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses ranking behavior ('the top one is usually the canonical definition'), result metadata (kind/detail), and the critical context:true caveat with a concrete jhāna simile example. It also instructs on verbatim quoting and clickable links, adding significant behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, the description is well-structured with headings, bold labels, and bullet points. Each section earns its place: purpose, comparison, presentation instructions, and a nuanced caveat. There is no redundancy or fluff; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description thoroughly covers return values, metadata interpretation, presentation requirements, and edge cases (context:true). Given the tool's complexity and the rich output schema, the description leaves no operational gaps and provides all necessary context for correct invocation and result handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it reiterates the base/dictionary form for term but doesn't explain syntax or format further). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Find how the suttas and Vinaya define a Pāli term in their own words,' a specific verb+resource statement. It then explicitly distinguishes itself from get_word_definition (doctrinal vs lexical), making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from its closest sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'This tool vs get_word_definition' section provides explicit use cases for each tool ('how do the suttas define X' vs 'etymology and word meaning') and advises offering both when the full picture is wanted. This is clear when/when-not guidance with an alternative named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tripitaka MCP (hosted) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Search tools are differentiated by strategy (keyword, hybrid, semantic, exhaustive). Reading tools separate content retrieval, comparison, and viewer rendering. Parsing and definition tools have complementary roles. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., compare_translations, get_sutta, list_editions, search_by_keyword. The only slight deviation is open_sutta_viewer using 'open' instead of 'view', but it still fits the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool addresses a distinct need: retrieval, search, parsing, dictionary, citation, structure overview, and comparison. No bloat or thinness.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for a read-only Pāli canon server: fetching content, searching (multiple modes), viewing with translations, comparing translations, parsing words, looking up definitions, listing editions and structure, and generating citations. There are no obvious gaps for the intended use case.

Resources

Need Help?