Receive today's sādhana practice: one verse, one principle, one reflection, and one exercise. Deterministic daily content for ethical alignment, selectable in English or Spanish.
Returns today's practice: one verse, one principle, one reflection, one exercise. Deterministic — the same agent gets the same practice all day, a different one tomorrow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: "es" or "en". Default: "en" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: determinism per agent per day and rotation tomorrow. It also states the return composition. For a simple read-only daily retrieval tool, this is sufficient context.
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?
Two short sentences with no fluff. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the determinism caveat is a concise, high-value addition.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter already documented by the schema, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what will be returned, and determinism clarifies expectations. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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%: the lang parameter's enum values and default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('today's practice') and enumerates its content: one verse, one principle, one reflection, one exercise. It also distinguishes itself from random-practice siblings by emphasizing deterministic daily content.
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 clearly communicates when to use it: when you need today's fixed practice. The determinism note implies it is not the tool for random/varied selection, making alternatives like get_random_verse implicitly less appropriate, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.