get_poem_linesFull-text search within poem lines on PoetryDB — finds any poem containing the given phrase in one of its lines. Returns full poem text (capped). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Phrase to find inside any line of a poem, e.g. "Nature", "the road not taken". | |
| limit | No | Max poems to return (default 10, max 20). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "text": "Nature"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 3,
+ "text": "the road not taken"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavior beyond annotations: 'Returns full poem text (capped)' indicates truncation, and 'Keyless' indicates no auth required. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). Could mention pagination or rate limits but not critical given simplicity.
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, no unnecessary words, front-loads key information: full-text search, capped results, keyless. Highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. Explains core functionality and cap behavior. Could include error handling or timeouts but not essential. Annotations fill gaps on idempotency and read-only nature.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds minimal extra (e.g., 'Keyless' not param-related). Baseline score of 3 appropriate as description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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?
Clearly states it performs full-text search within poem lines on PoetryDB, identifying the specific verb (search), resource (poem lines), and scope (contains phrase). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_poems' which likely search whole poems or metadata.
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?
Mentions 'Keyless' indicating no authentication needed. Implicitly guides usage for line-level search vs broader search. Does not explicitly state when not to use but provides adequate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.