lookup_refValidate or autocomplete a Sefaria reference or title (e.g. "Genesis", "Rashi", "Berakhot"). Returns whether it is a valid reference/book and a list of completions. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A partial title or reference to validate/autocomplete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Genesis"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "Rashi"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns validity and completions, and notes 'Keyless', but does not elaborate further. Overall, annotations carry most of the burden here.
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 filler, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place.
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 validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output. It could hint at case sensitivity or language support, but this is minor.
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% with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond 'keyless', which is not directly related to the parameter. 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?
The description clearly states the tool validates or autocompletes a Sefaria reference/title, with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_text or search_within that operate on valid references.
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 explicitly says to validate/autocomplete references, which guides when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings, though the context implies its role for validation before other operations.
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.