Retrieve all 114 chapters of the Quran with number, name, meaning, revelation place, and verse count. Use it to reference or navigate chapter metadata.
The 114 surahs: number, name, meaning, place of revelation, verse count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the full set of 114 surahs with specific fields, implying a static, parameter-free listing, but it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence fragment that wastes no words: the scope (114 surahs) comes first, followed by the exact fields returned. Every element earns its place.
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?
Given the low complexity (zero parameters, clear annotations, and an existing output schema), the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource and its contents without needing to explain return values. The only meaningful gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling tools.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.
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 states a specific resource ('The 114 surahs') and enumerates the returned metadata fields, making it clear this tool lists surah-level data rather than verses or translations. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not name or contrast itself with siblings such as get_verses or search_quran, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer its purpose entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.