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 /readings, or a plan name such as "japji" or "The Gita in 18 Days". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that content is delivered 'line by line' (per-line commentary), but omits anything about missing ids, error behavior, or response shape.
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 opening clause is front-loaded and short, but the second sentence is a comma-spliced run-on that lists myths, features, and epic titles without clear structure. It is verbose and hard to parse rather than concise.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the schema carries most of the load. The description gestures at the domain (myth readings and plans) but is too tangled to be a reliable complement; adequate at minimum, not more.
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 schema already explains the single 'id' parameter with examples ('japji', 'The Gita in 18 Days'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own explanation, 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 and opening clause 'One reading or plan, line by line' convey a retrieval of a single item, but the second sentence muddles it by bundling Greek/Norse myth, daily readings, plans, search, and whole-epic reading into one run-on. It is not clear whether this fetches one reading, runs a search, or plans a schedule, so it is only partially distinguishable from siblings like get_today or search_readings.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The mention of 'search' and 'plans' inside the description even risks steering the agent toward sibling tools (search_readings, list_readings) rather than clarifying that this tool fetches one item by id.
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.