lore_list_readingsScroll the Lore. All curated daily readings and plans. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds corpus-scope context (passage-at-a-time coverage of specific epics) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for an unbounded 'list all' operation.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope, which is good. But the middle clause is a sprawling corpus inventory ('daily readings explained line by line, plans, search, and the whole Theogony, Iliad, Odyssey and Poetic Edda') that mixes marketing with a stray 'search' feature that does not belong to this listing tool.
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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves key sibling distinctions unresolved (list all vs. today vs. search vs. books) and provides no expectation of result shape or volume.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing to document. Baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gap.
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 conveys a list/scroll of 'all curated daily readings and plans', which combined with the name makes the resource discernible. However, the bulk of the text describes the corpus (Greek/Norse myth, line-by-line commentary) rather than the tool's function, and it explicitly names 'search', which collides with the sibling lore_search_readings and blurs what this tool actually does.
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 statement of when to use this versus lore_get_today, lore_list_books, or lore_search_readings. The stray mention of 'search' actively muddies the routing decision rather than helping it.
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.