Bibliomantic MCP Server

Explain the method

describe_method

Read-only

Explains the three-coin I Ching casting method, changing lines, and how transformed hexagrams are derived so users can understand how a cast works.

Instructions

Explain how the three-coin method works and where this server's text comes from.

Use it when the user asks how a cast works, what changing lines are, or how the transformed hexagram is derived.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "describe_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coins`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`licence`	Yes
`line_values`	Yes
`changing_lines`	Yes
`transformed_hexagram`	Yes
`building_the_hexagram`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is the server's own explanatory text and source material, which is mildly useful, but it doesn't say whether the response is static prose or dynamic, or mention its size. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage triggers. Nothing is wasted and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, no parameters, and annotations covering the read-only/closed-world profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to select it. A brief note on expected output nature would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: explains the three-coin method and the provenance of the server's text. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools cast_hexagram, get_hexagram, and get_trigram, which retrieve or generate data rather than explain procedure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggers: the user asks how a cast works, what changing lines are, or how the transformed hexagram is derived. It covers the main when-to-use conditions, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for an actual cast, which is cast_hexagram).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server