sentenceFetch a single Tatoeba sentence record by numeric ID; returns the sentence text, language code, author, and linked audio/translation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Single sentence object from Tatoeba API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return metadata (text, language, author, audio/translation links), which is useful but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs or other edge cases. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited extra behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.
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 with two clear clauses, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 single-ID fetch tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return values. It does not mention error handling, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though it could note behavior for non-existent IDs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states 'by numeric ID', which reinforces the schema's type and required flag but adds minimal semantic meaning. It does not explain where the ID comes from or any constraints, so it only partially compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions.
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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'single Tatoeba sentence record', and the method 'by numeric ID'. It also lists the return contents, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like 'translations' or 'search'.
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 should be used when a numeric sentence ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Context signals show many sibling tools, yet no guidance is given on when to choose this one, so usage is only implied.
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.