list_sourcesRetrieves available Tipitaka sources, editions, licenses, mirrors, and offline access details so you can choose a reliable text and citation.
Sources, editions, licenses, mirrors and what works offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that offline availability ('what works offline') is reported — but says nothing about volume, grouping, or whether mirrors are nested under sources.
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?
It is short and wastes no words, but the single sentence is an unpunctuated list fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action and result. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity, not from efficiency.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It never says what a returned entry looks like (source name, editions, licence terms, mirror endpoints) or how the agent should use the result, which leaves a meaningful gap for a discovery 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies, with no penalty warranted.
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 is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb: 'Sources, editions, licenses, mirrors and what works offline.' It enumerates the subject matter, so an agent can infer it enumerates bibliographic sources, but the action (list/retrieve) comes only from the title. It also does no differentiation from siblings such as get_metadata or list_topics.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_metadata for a single item), and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point for available source collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.