Retrieve ranges of (n, a(n)) pairs from an OEIS entry's local b-file, skipping comments, to inspect or analyze sequence terms by start line and count.
Lines of the entry's b-file from the local oeisdata clone (n, a(n) pairs), when it was fetched with git lfs. start/count select lines of (n, a(n)) data, comments skipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anum | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies data comes from a local clone, requires git lfs, skips comments, and returns (n, a(n)) pairs. However, it does not describe error behavior if the b-file is missing or the output format in detail.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading what the tool returns and then clarifying parameter behavior. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly more precise about how start/count work.
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 simple read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main data source, format, and comment skipping. However, it leaves gaps in parameter semantics (especially start/count and anum) and does not mention what happens when the b-file is not available, which are important for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It states 'start/count select lines' but does not clarify whether start is a line index or an n-value, nor does it explain the 'anum' parameter. The semantics are too vague for a tool with entirely undocumented parameters.
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 clearly identifies the resource (lines of the entry's b-file from the local oeisdata clone) and the data format (n, a(n) pairs). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_entry or get_raw_entry, but the focus on b-file lines is specific enough to distinguish it from generic entry retrieval.
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 description mentions the condition 'when it was fetched with git lfs' but that is about data availability, not when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_bfile over get_entry or get_raw_entry, nor any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.