Retrieve exact dhātu entries by text, upstream ID, or base index; all ambiguous matches are returned with pagination.
Exact dhātu lookup; returns all ambiguous matches with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | text | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: exact lookups can still yield multiple ambiguous matches, and results are paginated. It omits any note on auth or result ordering.
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?
A single tight sentence with the lookup semantics front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the very compactness is part of why parameter detail is missing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. But for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the `by` lookup mode and pagination bounds unaddressed, leaving a real gap before an agent can invoke it confidently.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It implies the query is matched exactly and that limit/offset exist ('pagination'), but never explains the `by` enum (text / upstream_id / baseindex), which is the most consequential parameter.
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?
States a specific verb (lookup) and resource (dhātu) with the qualifier 'exact', which implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_dhatus. It does not name the sibling outright, so full differentiation requires the agent to infer from the name.
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?
'Exact dhātu lookup' implies you should use this when you have a precise query and search_dhatus when you don't, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is ever stated. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.