list_trigramsAll eight trigrams with font, binary, pinyin, symbolic name, english name, element character, and function. Data © IChing.Rocks — attribution is a condition of the license terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| trigrams | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by revealing licensing/attribution requirements and enumerating the exact fields returned, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the key information (all eight trigrams and fields), and the second adds necessary legal context. 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema (which covers return structure), and has annotations for read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers the remaining gaps: the list scope, fields included, and license condition. This is complete for a simple list tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information (there is none), but it clarifies the output content, which is the closest analog to parameter semantics for this endpoint.
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 returns all eight trigrams with a defined set of fields (font, binary, pinyin, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_trigram by explicitly covering the full set, not a single item.
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 context that this lists all eight trigrams implies use when the complete set is needed, but no explicit alternative is mentioned (e.g., 'for a single trigram use get_trigram'). Guidance is implicit rather than direct.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: single vs batch vs bulk retrieval, reading context, trigrams, sequences, search, and server info. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, search_), making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
10 tools is well-scoped for a domain-specific reference server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without bloat or deficiency.
The tool surface covers retrieval, listing, search, reading context, trigrams, and sequences. Minor gaps like a random hexagram tool are non-essential for a deterministic reference dataset.