VineVerse — Bible Knowledge Graph

Search concepts

search_concepts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search every document in the knowledge base by name, description, tag, path and type — people, places, themes, lexemes, commandments, events, epochs, books, chapters, sources and datasets alike.

All terms must match (AND), so adding a word narrows the result. Use type to stop one collection swamping another: there are ~3,000 people AND ~3,000 themes, so an unfiltered name query is a coin flip between a person and a topic.

This searches concept METADATA. To find a phrase in the text of Scripture use search_scripture; to fetch a reference you already know use get_passage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Restrict to documents carrying this tag.
`type`	No	Restrict to one collection: Person, Place, Theme, Lexeme, Commandment, Event, Epoch, Book, Chapter, Source, Dataset, Relation Vocabulary.
`limit`	No	How many matches to return. Defaults to 25, capped at 100.
`query`	Yes	One or more words, e.g. "sea galilee" or "zechariah king"
`offset`	No	For paging; compare with `total` in the response.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`type`	No
`count`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`results`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that all terms must match using AND, that matching applies to metadata only, and that unfiltered queries can return ambiguous results due to collection sizes. This adds real behavioral insight beyond structured annotations.

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 compact, immediately states the core purpose, then adds high-value behavioral and usage guidance in a logical order. Every sentence provides actionable information without redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter schema coverage, the description is complete for this tool's complexity. It explains the critical behavioral distinction between metadata search and full-text Scripture search, provides collection-level guidance, and routes to the correct sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description adds useful guidance about the `query` and `type` parameters, but it does not need to repeat all parameter details. The extra context tips this slightly positive but stays at baseline because the schema carries the load.

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 specifies a precise verb+resource: searches every concept in the knowledge base by metadata fields (name, description, tag, path, type). It also clearly enumerates the entity types covered and distinguishes itself from search_scripture and get_passage.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: search_scripture for phrases in text, get_passage for known references. It also gives practical guidance on using `type` to prevent collection imbalance from overwhelming results.

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?