tripitaka-mcp

Get Citation

get_reference

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a properly formatted citation string for a Pāli sutta, including canonical location and metadata. Use for academic references or when you need a ready-to-use citation.

Instructions

Build a proper citation string for a sutta.

💡 Use this tool when:

The user wants a citation for academic work, an article, or a reference.
You need to know the canonical location of a sutta (pitaka / nikāya).
You want a ready-to-use formatted citation string.

🔗 vs get_sutta: this tool returns metadata + citation only, no segments. Pair it with get_sutta when you want both the content and the citation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sutta_id`	Yes	Sutta ID, e.g. "mn1", "dn22", "sn56.11".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds useful behavioral context that it returns metadata + citation only (no segments), which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single clear opening sentence, a short bullet list for usage, and a sibling comparison. No wasted words, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and relationship to siblings. It leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter description providing examples. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Build a proper citation string for a sutta.' It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool `get_sutta`, which sets it apart as a citation-only tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes a 'Use this tool when' list with concrete use cases (academic work, canonical location, formatted citation) and explicitly compares to `get_sutta`, clarifying when to use each and when to combine them.

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

Deploy Server