Get streaming audio for a surah, plus the surah name and ayah count. Most reciters return a single full-surah URL; the rest return per-ayah numbering to build a playlist from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surah | Yes | Surah number, 1 to 114. | |
| reciter | No | Reciter edition. Defaults to "ar.alafasy" (Mishary Rashid Alafasy). Only ar.alafasy, ar.abdulbasitmurattal and ar.abdullahbasfar have single-file surah audio; the others are per-ayah. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / reciter / descriptionPrevious value: -"Reciter edition. Defaults to \"ar.alafasy\" (Mishary Rashid Alafasy)."New value: +"Reciter edition. Defaults to \"ar.alafasy\" (Mishary Rashid Alafasy). Only ar.alafasy, ar.abdulbasitmurattal and ar.abdullahbasfar have single-file surah audio; the others are per-ayah."Input schema / properties / reciter / enumPrevious value: -[
- "ar.alafasy",
- "ar.abdulbasitmurattal",
- "ar.husary",
- "ar.minshawi",
- "ar.muhammadayyoub"
-]New value: +[
+ "ar.alafasy",
+ "ar.abdulbasitmurattal",
+ "ar.abdullahbasfar",
+ "ar.husary",
+ "ar.husarymujawwad",
+ "ar.minshawi",
+ "ar.muhammadayyoub",
+ "ar.muhammadjibreel",
+ "ar.hudhaify",
+ "ar.mahermuaiqly",
+ "ar.shaatree",
+ "ar.ahmedajamy"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral detail: return of surah name and ayah count, and differences in audio format across reciters. This is valuable context not captured by annotations alone.
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 concise sentences without wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and secondary behavioral detail is added succinctly.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers expected return content (surah name, ayah count, audio format). Parameters are well-documented. Sibling context is irrelevant. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or prerequisites.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining which reciters return single-file vs per-ayah audio, aiding parameter selection beyond the enum list.
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 description clearly states the tool gets streaming audio for a surah, plus surah name and ayah count. It specifies the difference in return format between reciters (single-file URL vs per-ayah), distinguishing this tool from siblings which handle dates or prayer times.
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 description implies usage for retrieving surah audio but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct competition, but guidance is minimal.
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.