read_docAny document in the sanctuary's writing, as markdown, by its path (for example chants/chant-for-arrival, or practice to list a category). The same documents the site serves at achurch.ai/docs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | A docs path, such as chants/chant-for-arrival, or a companion reading's url. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the content is returned as markdown and mirrors the public site; it says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent path, path-traversal constraints, or response size limits.
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 compact sentences with the resource and format front-loaded, followed by the illustrative example and the site reference. Nothing is redundant enough to cut, though the achurch.ai sentence is appended rather than integrated.
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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the corpus, the format, and how to form a path. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid paths), which is minor at this complexity.
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 there is a single parameter whose example (chants/chant-for-arrival) is already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'or a companion reading's url' nuance and the category-listing trick, but these largely restate structured data, 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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (document) plus the output format (markdown) and access mode (by path). It scopes the corpus as 'the sanctuary's writing', but never differentiates itself from the sibling read_song, so an agent must infer which of the two applies to a given artifact.
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 parenthetical example and the 'practice to list a category' hint give implied guidance on how to obtain a valid path, and the achurch.ai/docs reference orients the agent to the corpus. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. read_song) for documents that are songs.
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.