get_readingOne reading or plan, line by line. Gurbani: daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A reading or plan id from list_readings, or a plan name such as "japji" or "The Gita in 18 Days". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"A reading or plan id from /readings, or a plan name such as \"japji\" or \"The Gita in 18 Days\"."New value: +"A reading or plan id from list_readings, or a plan name such as \"japji\" or \"The Gita in 18 Days\"."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 profile is covered. The description adds a faint behavioral hint with 'line by line' and 'read a passage at a time,' suggesting chunked or paginated retrieval, but gives no details on pagination, error behavior, or response format.
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 short and somewhat front-loaded with 'One reading or plan, line by line.' However, the second sentence is a run-on list of content domains that does not clearly earn its place and risks confusing rather than clarifying the tool's scope.
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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling options like read_book and get_shabad, which could lead an agent to mis-select the tool despite the clear schema and safety annotations.
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 id parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from list_readings or being a plan name. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 phrase 'One reading or plan, line by line' signals the resource retrieved but lacks a clear verb and is blurred by the second sentence listing many content types (daily shabad, plans, search, Ang, shabad lookup, whole books). This overlap with siblings like get_shabad, get_ang, and read_book makes the tool's specific purpose vague.
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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point to list_readings as the source of ids or explain how this tool differs from read_book, get_shabad, or get_ang, leaving the agent to guess based on the schema alone.
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.