Find Tao Te Ching chapters by searching a word or phrase across titles, Chinese text, or Legge translation. Locates relevant chapters for study or reference.
Find chapters by a word or phrase in the title, Chinese text, or Legge translation. This is a lightweight local search, not a claim about canonical interpretation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search phrase |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the search is local, lightweight, and not a statement about canonical interpretation, which is useful framing. However, it omits practical behavior such as match semantics, result shape, ordering, or limits, leaving significant room for ambiguity.
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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat in the second sentence is concise and relevant. No sentence is wasted.
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 single-parameter, search-oriented tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks any mention of what a result looks like, since there is no output schema, and does not explain pagination, matching behavior, or limits. The agent can invoke it correctly but may not know how to interpret the response.
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 coverage for the sole parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that the query can be a 'word or phrase' and by naming the fields the query applies to, going beyond the schema's bare 'Search phrase'.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the resource ('chapters'), and enumerates the searchable fields (title, Chinese text, Legge translation). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling point-lookup tools, and the caveat about not claiming canonical interpretation further scopes its purpose.
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?
It provides context by calling this a 'lightweight local search', which implies a use case distinct from heavyweight or interpretive tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_chapter, get_reflection, or list_topics, nor does it state when not to use it. Basic context exists but no clear alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.