lore_get_readingScroll the Lore. One reading or plan, line by line. Greek and Norse myth: daily readings explained line by line, plans, search, and the whole Theogony, Iliad, Odyssey and Poetic Edda read a passage at a time
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A reading or plan id from /readings, or a plan name such as "japji" or "The Gita in 18 Days". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the content domain (Greek and Norse myth, Theogony, Iliad, Odyssey, Poetic Edda) and that output is line-by-line explanation, but adds little else about behavior beyond what annotations provide.
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?
It opens with a clear purpose phrase, but the third clause is a run-on list of family-wide capabilities (search, plans, full epics) that don't belong to this specific tool and dilute the front-loaded intent.
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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is roughly adequate, but it omits the routing guidance needed to pick it over the many sibling lore_* and parallel-family get_reading tools, and the misleading 'search' mention leaves a gap.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that 'id' is a reading/plan id or a plan name. The description's 'one reading or plan' wording aligns but adds no new syntax, format, or fallback details beyond the schema.
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 title and description convey that this retrieves a single reading or plan and presents it 'line by line', a specific scope that distinguishes it from lore_list_readings and lore_search_readings. However, the phrasing bundles family capabilities ('search, and the whole Theogony...') into this tool's description, blurring its exact action versus siblings like lore_get_card or lore_get_today.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call lore_list_readings/lore_search_readings first to obtain an id, nor how this differs from lore_get_today or lore_get_card. The mention of 'search' and 'plans' reads as content coverage rather than routing advice, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
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.