Retrieve a Sanskrit sūtra by number and fetch its source commentaries with pagination and provenance for scholarly research.
Retrieve a sūtra and paginated source commentaries with provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| commentaries | No | ||
| commentary_limit | No | ||
| commentary_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, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated and carry provenance; it omits pagination semantics, defaults, or commentary-selection effects.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is so compressed that it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise.
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 values need not be restated. Still, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the required identifier and pagination behavior underspecified.
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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Paginated' loosely hints at commentary_limit/commentary_offset and 'commentaries' hints at the array parameter, but the required 'number' identifier and the enum values (sutrartha, kashika) are never explained.
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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a sūtra') and adds the scope of what comes back ('paginated source commentaries with provenance'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_sutra_context, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_sutras or get_sutra_context, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent gets a purpose but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.