Retrieve Sanskrit śabda entries without losing gender or lexical ambiguity. Filter by text or upstream ID, paginate, and return provenance-aware results.
Retrieve śabda entries without dropping gender or lexical ambiguity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | text | |
| limit | No | ||
| linga | 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: results preserve gender and lexical ambiguity rather than resolving senses. It says nothing about multiplicity of returned senses, ordering, or pagination behavior.
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 dense sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves needed detail out rather than being genuinely complete.
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 5-parameter, zero-coverage schema tool, the description omits parameter meanings, matching semantics, and result cardinality. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the input contract is almost undocumented.
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?
With 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only indirectly alludes to one parameter ('gender' -> linga) without stating the P/S/N/A codes. The 'by' selector (text vs upstream_id), limit, and offset are entirely unexplained, as is whether query is exact or prefix-matched.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (śabda entries), which distinguishes it from the search_* siblings in the verb itself. However, it never names search_shabdas or explains that this is the exact/direct-fetch counterpart, so the differentiation is left implicit.
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 clause 'without dropping gender or lexical ambiguity' implies when to prefer this tool (when fidelity of linga/ambiguity matters), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-use statement and no alternative is named. Usage must be inferred from a phrase about output quality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.