VineVerse — Bible Knowledge Graph

Get a passage

get_passage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a verse, a verse range or a whole chapter by OSIS reference. One verse: "John.3.16". A range: "John.3.16-18". A chapter: "John.3".

A verse or range comes back with its context: who is speaking, which people and places each verse names, which THEMES it develops, its cross references, and what points at it — the commandments stated there, the events and epochs narrated there. That context is the main way into the topical side of the knowledge base from a passage.

Text is the Berean Standard Bible. Sixteen verses are intentionally empty where the Berean edition omits them on manuscript grounds; the verse number is still present so numbering matches other translations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`osis`	Yes	OSIS reference: "John.3.16", "John.3.16-18", "Ps.23" or "1Sam.17.45"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`url`	No
`book`	Yes
`next`	No
`note`	No
`osis`	Yes
`text`	No
`verses`	Yes
`chapter`	No
`context`	No
`licence`	No
`omitted`	No
`previous`	No
`speakers`	No
`backlinks`	No
`reference`	No
`relations`	No
`verseCount`	No
`translation`	No
`backlinkCount`	No
`omittedVerses`	No
`versification`	No
`backlinksTruncated`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the exact text source (Berean Standard Bible), the intentional presence of empty verses for manuscript reasons, and the rich contextual payload returned with verses/ranges. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 well-organized in three short paragraphs: what is fetched, what comes back with it, and important translation-specific behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information, with examples front-loaded for immediate comprehension.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it defines accepted reference forms, explains the enrichment context returned, notes the Bible translation used, and discloses the empty-verse edge case. No important call-correctness fact omitted.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and already provides representative OSIS refs for verse, range, and chapter. The description mostly restates the same examples in prose, so it adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') with a specific resource ('a verse, a verse range or a whole chapter by OSIS reference') and gives concrete reference syntax. This clearly differentiates the tool from search-oriented siblings and makes its function immediately obvious.

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?

It describes when to use the tool for exact OSIS-based passage retrieval and explains that the returned context is 'the main way into the topical side of the knowledge base from a passage.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_scripture, but the intended use is clear.

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

All VineVerse — Bible Knowledge Graph tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct retrieval task, and the only near-overlaps—get_connections vs find_cross_references, get_stats vs get_status, get_entity vs get_family—are clearly separated by the descriptions. An agent could occasionally hesitate between get_entity and get_family for genealogy, but the purpose statements make the boundary clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use clear snake_case verb_noun phrasing, and most are get_* operations. There is a minor stylistic split between get_*, find_*, search_*, and list_*, which gives the set a slightly less uniform feel but is still predictable and readable enough for an agent.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but every tool covers a genuinely separate capability: passage lookup, concept search, graph queries, genealogy, interlinear, statistics, and service health. The count is large but reasonable for the breadth of a Bible knowledge graph.

Completeness5/5

For read-only knowledge-graph, the surface is well covered: known-lookup, text and concept search, browsing by collection, cross-references, graph neighborhoods, genealogy, places, interlinear, vocabulary, tags, and every diagnostics. get_stats and get_vocabulary together give an agent a reliable map of the whole domain, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?