get_readingOne reading or plan, line by line. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description contributes modest extra context about content scope (Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca; Meditations, Enchiridion, letters) and that content is delivered passage by passage.
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?
Two sentences, but the first is wasted on restating the title and the second is a long, comma-heavy content inventory that mixes unrelated facts. Front-loading is poor because the actual action is never stated.
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 should clarify what a fetched reading looks like; 'line by line' and 'read a passage at a time' gesture at the return shape but never confirm it. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is adequate but under-specified.
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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented there, including that it accepts a plan name like "japji" or "The Gita in 18 Days". The description adds no id semantics beyond the schema, 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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the title, and the remainder is catalog copy about the Stoic source texts rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never says explicitly that it retrieves a single reading or plan by id, so an agent must infer the fetch semantics from the tool name and schema.
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 alternatives such as list_readings or search_readings, even though sibling names make the choice non-obvious. The only routing hint ('a reading or plan id from list_readings') lives in the schema, not the description.
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.