Find sūtras by literal lexical query and view upstream word metadata. Retrieve matching Sanskrit text with pagination for scholarly, provenance-aware use.
Literal lexical search of sūtra text and upstream word metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait, that matching is literal/lexical rather than semantic, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ranking, or result size, which matter for a search tool with limit/offset.
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 zero waste, putting the search scope and matching mode first. It is efficient, though the terseness trades away some needed detail.
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 described. However, for a paginated search tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves gaps about paging and what part of the sūtra text is matched that an agent would need to call 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% and none of the three parameters (query, limit, offset) are explained in the schema. The description specifies the search corpus ('sūtra text and upstream word metadata'), which clarifies the query parameter, but limit/offset paging semantics and query syntax remain undocumented.
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 (search) and resource (sūtra text and upstream word metadata), and the qualifier 'literal lexical' distinguishes it from semantic-style search siblings like search_dhatus and search_shabdas. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With six sibling search/get tools available, the agent gets no explicit routing signal; the only hint is the implicit 'literal lexical' scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.