get_verseGet a single verse (sloka) of the Bhagavad Gita by chapter and verse number. Returns the Sanskrit verse in Devanagari, its transliteration, and English translations from multiple commentators (Sivananda, Purohit, Gambirananda, Adidevananda) plus commentary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verse | Yes | Verse (sloka) number within the chapter. | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number, 1-18. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read operation. Description adds detail on return content (Sanskrit, transliteration, multiple translations), which is helpful beyond annotations.
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?
Single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core functionality.
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 simple retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return content. No output schema needed as description explains what is returned.
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?
Parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). Description adds no new parameter-level details, but confirms overall purpose. 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a single verse (sloka) of the Bhagavad Gita by chapter and verse, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chapter and list_chapters.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use (retrieve a specific verse), and the sibling tools imply when not to use. No explicit exclusions, but straightforward.
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.
Individual tools have detailed descriptions and mostly distinct purposes, but the mix of domains (scripture, finance, data lookup) could confuse an agent about which tool to choose for a given task. However, within each subdomain, tools are clearly differentiated.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some are single verbs (forget, recall). The mix of snake_case with varied starting parts makes naming unpredictable.
With 23 tools but only 3 related to the server's stated purpose (Bhagavad Gita), the tool count is severely mismatched. The vast majority belong to data analytics and finance, making the set feel bloated and mis-scoped.
For a Bhagavad Gita server, only list_chapters, get_chapter, and get_verse are provided, missing obvious features like search, commentary comparison, or multiple translations. The other tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving it extremely incomplete.