daily-scripture-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds value by stating the perspective ('conservative evangelical'), translation ('ESV'), and that it includes a reflection connecting to 'purposeful life' – useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Offers BOTH operational details (returns verse + reflection) and context (perspective, audience). No wasted words or repetition of schema.

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?

Given the simple tool (no required params, no output schema, no siblings), description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool returns, its perspective, and its intended use case. Minor gap: doesn't specify the reflection's length or how the verse is formatted, but these aren't critical for invoking. The return format (just one verse) is implied but not explicit.

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%, so the schema fully describes the optional 'client' param. Description doesn't add any details about the param's semantics, but with full coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear and specific: 'Daily scripture for morning briefs. Returns one Bible verse with reference and translation, plus a short reflection.' The resource (daily scripture), action (returns), and scope (for morning briefs) are all explicit. No siblings, so no differentiation needed.

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?

Context is clear ('for morning briefs'), and there's a hint at the intended audience ('Christian professionals'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, though there are no siblings. Lacks an exclusion such as 'not for users outside this tradition.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.