Retrieve any full Juz (1–30) of the Quran by number in a selected edition, defaulting to quran-uthmani.
Get a full juz (1 to 30) in a specific edition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Juz number, 1 to 30. | |
| edition | No | Edition slug. Default `quran-uthmani`. | quran-uthmani |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (no return format, no pagination, no edition fallback behavior), which is acceptable but unremarkable given the annotation coverage.
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 short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is adequate for a simple read-only retrieval tool; only the routing relative to verse-level siblings is left implicit.
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 100%, so both 'number' (1-30) and 'edition' (default quran-uthmani) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates the 1-30 range and the edition concept without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Get a full juz') with the valid range (1 to 30) and the edition qualifier. An agent can distinguish it from the verse-level siblings, but it never names quran_surah/quran_ayah/quran_search to clarify the granularity boundary.
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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains quran_surah, quran_ayah, and quran_search that overlap in domain. The agent must infer that this is for whole-juz retrieval rather than surah or single-ayah access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.