I Ching Hexagram MCP

Search Hexagrams

search_hexagrams

Read-onlyIdempotent

Deterministic literal/keyword search over a closed whitelist of hexagram text fields (not semantic). Case-, diacritic-, and traditional/simplified Chinese-insensitive. Optional fields, order, and limit (default 10, max 64). Texts are an original IChing.Rocks translation; vocabulary from classic English translations (Wilhelm/Baynes, Legge, Blofeld) may not match literally. Data © IChing.Rocks — attribution is a condition of the license terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results, 1-64. Default 10.
`order`	No	Ordering: kingwen \| mawangdui \| eightpalaces \| binary. Default kingwen.
`query`	Yes	Literal text to match (max 200 chars). Case-, diacritic-, and traditional/simplified Chinese-insensitive.
`fields`	No	Whitelisted field paths to search; defaults to the documented default set.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`limit`	No
`order`	No
`query`	No
`fields`	No
`source`	No
`results`	No
`total_matches`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: determinism, literal matching, closed whitelist, case/diacritic/Chinese-insensitivity, default/max limits, translation source differences, and licensing/attribution. This significantly aids an agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact paragraph with three sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and licensing. The license link is relevant but slightly adds length; overall it is efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and a well-populated input schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, matching semantics, limits, data source caveats, and legal terms. No significant gaps remain for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described in detail. The description summarizes optional fields, order, limit (default 10, max 64), which are already in the schema. It adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a 'deterministic literal/keyword search' over a 'closed whitelist of hexagram text fields', with the explicit qualifier 'not semantic'. This distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools and precisely conveys the tool's function and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool: for literal/keyword matching rather than semantic search, and notes case/diacritic/Chinese-insensitivity. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other use cases, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All I Ching Hexagram MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: single vs batch vs bulk retrieval, reading context, trigrams, sequences, search, and server info. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, search_), making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a domain-specific reference server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without bloat or deficiency.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?