Retrieve Quranic verses in Uthmani Arabic with translations by reference, including single verses, passages, or entire surahs.
Arabic text and translation of a verse or a passage: '2:255', '2:255-257', or a surah number for the whole surah (up to 300 verses).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | ||
| translation | No | fra-muhammadhamidul |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing behavioral. The one useful hint is the 'up to 300 verses' payload-size warning for whole-surah requests; beyond that there is no mention of how translations are selected or what the response contains.
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 compact sentence front-loads the returned content and then the accepted reference forms. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted and the useful information comes first.
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-value shape need not be described, and reference formats are covered. What is missing is guidance for the translation parameter and any routing signal against the four sibling retrieval tools, which an agent choosing among six tools genuinely needs.
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 the load, and it does document the reference parameter well with three concrete format examples including ranges. However the 'translation' parameter is completely unaddressed — no mention of the code format or that list_translations supplies valid values — leaving half the surface undocumented.
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 names the resource (Quranic verses) and what is returned (Arabic text plus translation), and gives concrete reference shapes ('2:255', '2:255-257', whole surah). The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling search_quran or list_surahs.
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 explains accepted reference formats but never says when to pick this tool over search_quran (keyword lookup) or list_surahs (enumeration). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.