lore_get_todayScroll the Lore. Today's reading, line by line (same as the app shows today). 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional day as YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today (UTC). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only that output is 'line by line' and matches the app's today view; it does not discuss rate limits, offline behavior, or what an empty day returns. Modest added value on top of annotations.
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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the key fact. The second sentence is product-marketing copy listing the corpus and other features (plans, search) that do not belong in a single-tool definition, so it does not earn its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the return shape; 'line by line' gives a hint of the format but nothing about structure, verse references, or empty-day behavior. For a simple one-optional-param read tool it is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%: the single optional 'date' parameter is fully documented as YYYY-MM-DD defaulting to today (UTC). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opening establishes a specific resource and scope: today's reading, delivered 'line by line (same as the app shows today).' That is enough to distinguish it from lore_get_reading and lore_search_readings. The second sentence, however, describes the whole Lore product (plans, search, the entire Theogony/Iliad/Odyssey) rather than this tool, blurring the purpose slightly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the default 'what should I read today' entry point, and 'same as the app shows today' signals the default/date-driven use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus lore_get_reading or lore_get_card, and no mention of what happens when no reading exists for a day.
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.