bible.verseGet a single verse from the World English Bible (eng-web). Accepts OSIS, USFM, full name, or alias for book_code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verse | Yes | Verse number | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number | |
| book_code | Yes | Book identifier. Example: "John" or "Joh" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verse | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the translation (World English Bible) and listing accepted formats for book_code (OSIS, USFM, full name, alias), which gives insight into input flexibility.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Get a single verse') followed by a necessary detail about book_code formats. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
With strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), an output schema, and a description that covers purpose, source translation, and book_code flexibility, the tool's usage context is fully specified. Nothing critical is missing for this simple read tool.
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?
The schema provides basic descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds significant meaning for book_code by enumerating accepted formats (OSIS, USFM, full name, alias). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Book identifier' and example.
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 the tool's function: 'Get a single verse from the World English Bible (eng-web).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'single verse' distinction differentiates it from sibling tools like bible.chapter and bible.book.
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?
The description implies usage for fetching a single verse, which is clear context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The sibling tool names (e.g., bible.chapter) help infer boundaries, but the description itself does not name them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., audio.get vs bible.book vs entities.list). There is no overlap, and even similar tools like search.fulltext and search.semantic are clearly differentiated by mode.
All tools follow a consistent 'domain.action' pattern using lowercase and dots. Underscores within domain names (e.g., urantia_parallels) are uniform. No mixing of camelCase or irregular verbs.
19 tools is well-scoped for a server covering the Urantia Book and Bible integration. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat or insufficiency.
The surface covers all core operations: browsing (list/get for papers, entities, paragraphs), searching (fulltext and semantic), structured navigation (toc.get, papers.sections), audio, and Bible parallels. No obvious gaps.