stoics_search_readingsStoic Scroller. Search the curated readings, best match first. The Stoics: daily readings from Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus and Seneca explained line by line, plans, search, and the whole Meditations, Enchiridion and Seneca's letters read a passage at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Words to search for, for example anger or death. |
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'best match first' relevance-ordering behavior, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result counts, pagination, or matching semantics.
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 two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing run-on about Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca, plans, and letters is promotional filler that does not help an agent select or invoke the 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 one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The content sentence, while verbose, does signal what corpus is being searched.
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% and the single 'q' parameter is documented with examples ('anger or death'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no keyword syntax, phrase, or matching details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (curated readings) and adds a ranking behavior ('best match first'). This implicitly separates it from siblings like stoics_get_reading, stoics_list_readings, and stoics_read_book, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 by the verb: use it to find readings by keyword, ranked by relevance. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over stoics_list_readings or stoics_get_reading, nor any note on result scope or fallback behavior.
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.