Skip to main content
Glama

fojin — Buddhist Canon Tools

by app.fojin

get_parallels

Cross-canon parallel passages aligned to a fascicle.

fojin's alignment moat: given a Chinese fascicle, returns the aligned
Pali/Tibetan/Sanskrit parallels so you can compare how a passage is
rendered across traditions.

A fascicle returns parallels for the *whole* juan — often hundreds. To
narrow them to one passage, match the passage against `source_chunks[].text`
and keep the parallels whose `aligns_source_chunk` equals that chunk_index.

`urn` is filled for parallels that are fojin works; rows with
`source="mitra-parallel"` are inline Skt/Tib sentences with no fojin work to
cite, so they carry `original_preview` instead and stay `urn: null`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
text_idYes
juan_numYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that a fascicle returns the whole juan (often hundreds), explains how to narrow via aligns_source_chunk, and details the urn behavior for different source types (mitra-parallel rows have original_preview and urn: null). This is rich behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but efficient: four sentences, each providing essential operational detail. It front-loads the purpose and then adds necessary filtering and urn behavior, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers result scope, narrowing strategy, and field semantics (urn, original_preview, source), giving the agent enough to invoke and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It mentions 'juan' conceptually but does not explicitly describe text_id or juan_num parameters. The description says 'given a Chinese fascicle' but never maps this to the actual parameter names, leaving text_id unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns cross-canon parallel passages aligned to a Chinese fascicle, specifically Pali/Tibetan/Sanskrit parallels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_passage or search_corpus by focusing on alignment comparison, using the phrase 'fojin's alignment moat'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (given a Chinese fascicle) and how to handle large results (match against source_chunks to narrow). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All fojin — Buddhist Canon Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation: commentaries for historical glosses, get_parallels for cross-tradition alignments, lookup_dictionary for terms, lookup_entity for entities, read_passage for full text, resolve_urn for citation resolution, search_corpus for semantic search, and verify_quote for verbatim verification. There is no overlap in purpose, and the boundaries are clear even between similar-looking lookups.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_parallels, lookup_dictionary, read_passage, resolve_urn, search_corpus, verify_quote). The lone exception is 'commentaries,' which is a noun rather than a verb_noun construction, but this is a minor deviation in an otherwise uniform set.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for a specialized Buddhist canon research domain. Each tool earns its place, covering search, retrieval, verification, lookup, and cross-reference without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the complete research workflow: finding passages (search_corpus), reading them (read_passage), verifying quotes (verify_quote), resolving citations (resolve_urn), understanding terms (lookup_dictionary) and entities (lookup_entity), and exploring cross-tradition parallels (get_parallels) and commentaries (commentaries). No significant gaps exist for the stated purpose.

Resources