Sefaria Library
Server Details
Access Sefaria's library of Jewish texts, commentaries, and learning schedules via MCP
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving text, metadata, structure, links, versions, table of contents, topics, search, and calendar schedules. There is no ambiguity or overlap between their functions.
All tool names follow a clear 'verb_noun' pattern using underscores (e.g., get_text, search_texts). The convention is consistent across the entire set, with only the verb 'get' being reused uniformly except for 'search' which is a different action.
With 9 tools, the server covers the essential operations for a text library without being overwhelming. Each tool is justified for its use case, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for accessing and searching the Sefaria library: text retrieval, metadata, structure, links, versions, navigation via table of contents and topics, search, and daily learning schedules. No obvious gaps are present.
Available Tools
9 toolsget_calendarsBInspect
Returns daily learning schedules (Parashat Hashavua, Daf Yomi, etc.) for a specific date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today) | |
| custom | No | Customization (1 for diaspora, 0 for Israel parasha scheme) | |
| timezone | No | Timezone name (e.g., 'America/New_York', 'Asia/Jerusalem') | America/New_York |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description only mentions the return behavior for a given date.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words are present.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, but it lacks details on the structure of the returned schedules or any additional behavioral context. Given the absence of an output schema, some explanation of the return format would improve completeness.
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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely implying the date parameter by mentioning 'specific date.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameters adequately.
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 it returns daily learning schedules for a specific date, naming examples like Parashat Hashavua and Daf Yomi. It uses a specific verb+resource combination and differentiates from sibling tools which deal with indices, links, shapes, etc.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools. The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_indexAInspect
Returns metadata for a specific text, such as section names and categories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| v2 | No | Use v2 index for more detailed records | |
| title | Yes | The title of the text (e.g., 'Genesis') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output is metadata but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.
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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant information.
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?
Without an output schema, the description partially explains the return type (section names and categories) but lacks full detail about the structure. It also does not leverage sibling context to guide tool selection, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('v2' and 'title'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 returns metadata for a specific text, with examples like section names and categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as 'get_text' (full text) and 'get_toc' (table of contents).
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 retrieving metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_text' or 'search_texts'. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_linksAInspect
Returns a list of known connections (commentary, citations, etc.) for a specific text segment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The text reference to find links for | |
| with_text | No | Include the text of the linked source |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool is read-only (returns a list) but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that. With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description; it lacks details on side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or response format. However, it does not contradict any annotations (none present).
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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information.
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?
Considering the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool. It explains what links are (commentary, citations) and what they apply to (specific text segment). However, it could be improved by noting the format of the returned list or any pagination behavior.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the context that links include commentary and citations, which is a small but useful addition. However, it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 returns a list of known connections (commentary, citations, etc.) for a specific text segment. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'links/connections' make the purpose explicit, and the examples distinguish it from siblings like get_text or get_index.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_index or get_text. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool's name and basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_shapeBInspect
Returns the structure and section counts for a specific text reference
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The text reference (e.g., 'Genesis') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single sentence that directly conveys the action without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level understanding of what is returned. However, it does not specify the format of 'structure' or 'section counts', or any constraints on the 'ref' parameter, leaving some ambiguity. Sibling tools exist, but no connection is made.
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 the parameter 'ref' well-described as 'The text reference (e.g., 'Genesis')'. The tool description adds that the return includes 'structure and section counts', which provides context for the parameter's purpose but does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 includes a specific verb ('Returns'), the resource ('structure and section counts'), and the context ('specific text reference'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_text or get_calendars, though the resource name is distinct enough.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like search_texts or get_index. It does not include any when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_textAInspect
Retrieve the text and metadata for a specific reference (e.g., 'Genesis.1.1' or 'Berakhot 2a')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The citation reference | |
| context | No | 0 to return just the specific text, 1 to include surrounding context |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Retrieve', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose what the metadata includes, any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The schema adds params but the description adds minimal behavioral context.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and includes examples without unnecessary detail.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks specifics about the return format (e.g., structure of metadata). With no output schema, the agent may need to infer behavior. The context parameter is explained in the schema, so the description meets minimal requirements.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing concrete examples of the 'ref' parameter format ('Genesis.1.1' or 'Berakhot 2a'), which goes beyond the schema's bare 'The citation reference'. This helps the agent understand valid input patterns.
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 retrieves text and metadata for a specific reference, with concrete examples. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'text and metadata' are specific. While siblings exist, their names indicate different resources (calendars, index, etc.), so the purpose is well-defined.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_texts, nor does it provide when-not scenarios. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_tocAInspect
Returns the table of contents for all texts in the library, grouped by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output is a grouped table of contents, but fails to disclose details like format, scope ('all texts'), or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is functional but not richly transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and grouping behavior.
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?
For a simple parameterless tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how it organizes data. No additional context is needed given the lack of parameters and output schema.
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 input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning as there are none, but it clarifies the output structure which indirectly adds context. Score stays at baseline.
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 specifies the action (returns), the resource (table of contents for all texts), and the grouping behavior (by category). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_index or get_text by focusing on the TOC structure.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_index or search_texts. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose, which may lead to incorrect tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_topicsBInspect
Returns a list of JSON objects containing metadata for topics in the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. While 'returns' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.
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 a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimal. It adequately states the return type but does not elaborate on what metadata includes or any ordering/filtering, leaving some ambiguity.
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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool returns a list of JSON objects with metadata for topics, clearly indicating verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_texts that might also return topics.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_versionsBInspect
Returns available text versions for a specific reference
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The text reference (e.g., 'Genesis.1.1') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns versions, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits, or error scenarios. The description is too minimal to adequately inform safe invocation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core behavior. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description should explain the return format or structure of the text versions. It does not, leaving a significant gap in completeness. Additionally, it does not specify ordering or any additional context.
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% for the single parameter (ref). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema's example, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 returns available text versions for a specific reference, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_text (which returns the actual text) and get_index (which returns index data), making the purpose unambiguous.
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: call this when you need available versions of a text reference. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_text or search_texts), nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_textsBInspect
Search the Sefaria library for a query string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Number of results to return | |
| type | No | Type of documents to search | text |
| query | Yes | The search query |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'search' without describing return format, pagination, result count, or potential side effects. Critical behavioral traits are omitted.
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?
Description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or dilution.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what the search returns (e.g., list of texts, metadata), leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, such as query interpretation or size limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('the Sefaria library') with a specific target ('query string'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_text or get_index, which retrieve specific items rather than perform open-ended searches.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_text for direct text retrieval). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for preferred use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!