toc.getGet the full table of contents of the Urantia Book. Returns all 4 parts and 197 papers with their titles. This is the best starting point to understand the book structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parts | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the exact content ('Returns all 4 parts and 197 papers with their titles') and its purpose as a starting point. This is valuable but does not contradict or require additional safety disclosures.
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 sentences effectively convey the purpose, content, and usage context. No wasted words, key information is front-loaded.
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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and why it is useful. It is complete for a simple read-only TOC retrieval tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description needs to explain no parameters, and it does not. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.
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 gets the full table of contents of the Urantia Book, specifying it returns all 4 parts and 197 papers with titles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like papers.list or bible.books by focusing on the complete structural overview.
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?
It provides clear context by saying 'This is the best starting point to understand the book structure,' implying when to use it for overview purposes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like papers.list or bible.books, so it lacks the explicit exclusions of a 5.
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.