Skip to main content
Glama

SoapBox Faith

by io.github.alansafahi

check_prayer_status

Read-only

Check how many people are praying for a prayer request previously submitted for a user (and whether it's been marked answered). Requires the same user's consent_token; only returns status for that user's own prayers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prayer_idYesThe prayer_id returned by submit_prayer_request.
consent_tokenYesThe same user's SoapBox consent token (scope 'prayer:write') used when the prayer was submitted. Only returns status for that user's own prayers.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond this: it requires a specific consent_token and only returns status for the user's own prayers, disclosing scope and authentication constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then adds necessary conditions. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or tangential content.

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 simple status-check tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what it does (count + answered flag), when it applies (previously submitted), and its access requirements. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both prayer_id and consent_token, including the token scope and ownership restriction. The description merely paraphrases these requirements, adding no new parameter-level semantics.

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 checks 'how many people are praying' and 'whether it's been marked answered' for a previously submitted prayer request. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_prayer_request, which creates requests.

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 for when to use this tool: for a prayer request 'previously submitted,' and it emphasizes the requirement for the same user's consent_token, restricting use to their own prayers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All SoapBox Faith 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: ask_ora is for Q&A, get_verse for exact verse lookup, verify_scripture for quote checking, lookup_strongs for lexicon entries, and so on. Any potential overlap (e.g., ask_ora vs get_verse) is explicitly addressed in the descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently use a verb_noun or verb_prep_noun pattern (e.g., get_verse, search_sermons, submit_prayer_request, pay_with_x402). No mixing of casing or verb styles is present.

Tool Count3/5

At 19 tools, the set feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the breadth spans scripture, sermons, prayers, giving, churches, user context, and audio synthesis. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., purchase_sermon and purchase_bundle into a single purchase action) or split into separate services.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well-covered: discovery, purchase, prayer submission/status, giving, church lookup, and Bible study. However, there are minor gaps such as no way to update or delete prayer requests, no list of previously purchased items, and no general user profile beyond faith context. These are workable but prevent full lifecycle management.

Resources