papers.sectionsGet all sections within a paper, ordered by section number. Useful for understanding paper structure before reading specific sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | Paper ID (0-196). Example: '1' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sections | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: 'all sections' and 'ordered by section number.'
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 succinct sentences with the verb front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The description is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema. However, it does not clarify the relationship to the sibling tool toc.get, which could cause ambiguity in tool selection.
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 fully describes the single paper_id parameter with type, description, and example, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'within a paper' reinforces the parameter's role but adds no new technical detail.
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 'Get all sections within a paper, ordered by section number', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from papers.get and papers.list, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named toc.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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding paper structure before reading specific sections.' It implies when to use the tool but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
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.