list_surahsList all 114 surahs (chapters) of the Quran with their Arabic name, English name, English translation, ayah (verse) count, and revelation type (Meccan/Medinan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context of what fields are returned, which is useful but not critical for behavioral understanding.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all essential information without any fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 parameters and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains the tool's output, making it complete for an agent to understand its function.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists all 114 surahs and specifies the exact fields returned (Arabic name, English name, translation, ayah count, revelation type). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_surah' which retrieves a single surah.
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 the tool is for listing all surahs, and sibling names like 'get_surah' and 'search_quran' suggest alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.