entities.paragraphsGet all paragraphs that mention a specific entity, ordered by position in the text. Useful for studying everything said about a particular being, place, or concept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (0-indexed) | |
| limit | No | Results per page (1-100) | |
| entity_id | Yes | Entity slug ID. Example: "god-the-father" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are ordered by position and scoped to entity mentions, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 concise sentences: the first gives the verb, resource, and scope/ordering; the second adds a usage context. No redundant information.
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?
With output schema and annotations present, the description suffices for selection and invocation. The phrase 'all paragraphs' is slightly ambiguous given pagination, but the schema's page/limit fields clarify that.
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?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), including entity_id with an example. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 retrieves paragraphs mentioning a specific entity, with a specific ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like entities.get (entity metadata) or paragraphs.get (specific paragraph lookup).
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 a clear use case ('studying everything said about a particular being, place, or concept') and implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.