Returns daily learning schedules (Parashat Hashavua, Daf Yomi, etc.) for a specific date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today) | |
| custom | No | Customization (1 for diaspora, 0 for Israel parasha scheme) | |
| timezone | No | Timezone name (e.g., 'America/New_York', 'Asia/Jerusalem') | America/New_York |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Returns', indicating a read-only operation, and specifies that it is date-specific. However, it omits details like default date behavior or timezone handling, which the schema partially covers. This is adequate but not rich.
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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose and examples without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately informative.
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 tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned and gives examples, though it could elaborate on return structure or edge cases. This is above average but not fully comprehensive.
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 all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the score remains at baseline.
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's function: returning daily learning schedules for a specific date, with concrete examples (Parashat Hashavua, Daf Yomi). This distinct verb-resource pair differentiates it from sibling tools that handle indexes, texts, or topics.
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 use case is clear from the description: retrieve schedules for a given date. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, but the specificity makes the context unambiguous, earning a 4 rather than 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 aspect of the library: schedules, text metadata, links, structure, content, TOC, topics, versions, and search. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with 'get_' for retrieval operations and 'search_texts' for the search operation. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only library API. Each tool earns its place, covering the core retrieval needs without overwhelming the agent with excessive options.
The set comprehensively covers the library domain: searching, retrieving text, versions, structure, links, calendars, topics, and the full table of contents. For a read-only library, there are no obvious missing operations or dead ends.