entities.getGet detailed information about a specific entity by its slug ID. Returns name, type, aliases, description, related entities, and citation count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | Entity slug ID. Example: "god-the-father" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the list of returned fields, but since an output schema exists, this is redundant. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth, error handling) are mentioned, but none are critical for a simple read operation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and quickly conveys purpose and output. Every word contributes value with no waste.
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 read-only get tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states the input identifier and summarizes the returned fields. It does not mention what happens when the entity is not found, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema.
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 100% for the single parameter entity_id, including an example. The description merely reiterates 'slug ID' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('entity'), and the scope ('by its slug ID'), while also listing the key fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like entities.list and other getters such as papers.get.
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 the usage context: use when you need detailed information about a specific entity identified by slug. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over list or search tools.
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 and action (e.g., audio.get vs bible.book vs entities.list). There is no overlap, and even similar tools like search.fulltext and search.semantic are clearly differentiated by mode.
All tools follow a consistent 'domain.action' pattern using lowercase and dots. Underscores within domain names (e.g., urantia_parallels) are uniform. No mixing of camelCase or irregular verbs.
19 tools is well-scoped for a server covering the Urantia Book and Bible integration. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat or insufficiency.
The surface covers all core operations: browsing (list/get for papers, entities, paragraphs), searching (fulltext and semantic), structured navigation (toc.get, papers.sections), audio, and Bible parallels. No obvious gaps.