Returns a list of known connections (commentary, citations, etc.) for a specific text segment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The text reference to find links for | |
| with_text | No | Include the text of the linked source |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states a return value and examples of connection types, but does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or the effect of the with_text parameter. It is a read operation by implication but lacks explicit safety statements.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 tool has a simple signature with complete schema, but no output schema exists. The description gives a high-level return type (list of known connections) but lacks detail on the list's structure, edge cases, or how with_text alters the response. It is adequate for basic use but leaves open questions.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by framing 'ref' as 'specific text segment,' but it does not elaborate on the with_text parameter or any parameter-specific nuances beyond schema descriptions.
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 returns a list of known connections (e.g., commentary, citations) for a text segment. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text or get_toc, which operate on different entities.
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 usage for a specific text segment (requires a ref) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like search_texts or get_text. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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.