Search the hatha.es glossary to find Sanskrit term definitions, using diacritics-insensitive matching for accurate results.
Search Sanskrit terms in the hatha.es glossary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return (default 10, max 30) | |
| query | Yes | Term to search (supports diacritics-insensitive matching) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a search operation, implying a read action, but provides no details on return format, result shape, pagination, or side effects. The diacritics-insensitive matching hint lives in the schema, not the description.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word 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?
Despite having simple, well-schematized parameters, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description fails to state what a search returns (e.g., glossary entries, definitions, translations) and does not differentiate it from search_verses, leaving an agent to guess its role in a workflow.
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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully documented in the input schema, including the diacritics-insensitive matching behavior and default/max limit. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the hatha.es glossary'), and the object ('Sanskrit terms'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search_verses, which targets verses rather than glossary entries.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the choice between search_glossary and search_verses to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.