Retrieve the text and metadata for a specific reference (e.g., 'Genesis.1.1' or 'Berakhot 2a')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The citation reference | |
| context | No | 0 to return just the specific text, 1 to include surrounding context |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and examples, but doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, what 'metadata' includes, or how errors are handled. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or output characteristics.
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, clear sentence that instantly conveys the tool's purpose with examples. No wasted words, front-loaded verb, and the formatting is clean. It earns the highest score.
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 retrieval tool with two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. There's no output schema, so the return format is not specified. Also lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, but the examples compensate partially. Overall, it's a minimally viable description.
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 descriptions cover both parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid ref formats ('Genesis.1.1', 'Berakhot 2a') and mentioning that the tool returns metadata, which is not in the schema. This extra context raises the score to 4.
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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'text and metadata for a specific reference,' with concrete examples. This clearly states what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_links or get_toc. The resource type is fairly distinct, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over search_texts or how it differs from get_index. There's no explicit exclusion or alternative, so it lacks usage guidelines.
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.