get_readingOne 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 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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the vague 'line by line' hint — no note on what is returned, whether missing ids error, or how plans vs readings differ.
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 clause is front-loaded and on point, but the second sentence is padded with content-catalogue language ('Greek and Norse myth', 'Theogony, Iliad, Odyssey and Poetic Edda') and a stray 'search' reference that doesn't 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 carries some of the return-value burden, and 'line by line' gives a partial sense of the response. However, it never explains the shape of the returned reading/plan or how a plan differs from a reading, leaving a gap for a lookup tool.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that id comes from list_readings or may be a plan name like 'japji'. The description adds nothing about the id format, 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 title/opening phrase 'One reading or plan, line by line' conveys that it fetches a single reading or plan entity, but the verb is implicit and the body drifts into marketing copy about Greek and Norse myth and even mentions 'search', which is a different sibling. An agent can infer retrieval-by-id, but sibling differentiation is weak rather than explicit.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative list_readings (which the schema itself references) or search_readings/read_book. The description never states when to pick this tool over its siblings.
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.