Skip to main content
Glama

find_churches_preaching_on

Read-only

Answer "which churches actually preach on X?". Searches consented sermons for a topic and groups the results BY CHURCH, so instead of scattered passages you get each church with how many of its sermons matched, how closely, and a representative excerpt with its timestamp. Useful for someone looking for a church home who cares what is taught there. No key required. TWO THINGS TO TELL THE PERSON, because they change how the answer should be read. (1) Only churches that OPTED IN to agent discovery can appear, so a church's absence is not evidence it never preaches on this — most churches have not opted in. Never present this as a survey. (2) It is not an endorsement, a rating, or a judgement about any congregation: the ranking reflects how many of a church's sermons matched the topic and how closely, and nothing else. Do not turn it into a recommendation of which church is better or more faithful. Churches that returned to a subject across several sermons rank above one that brushed it in a single passage, because that better answers the question being asked. Pair with find_churches to see where a church actually is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of churches to return. The ranking is over the closest-matching passages this search found, so fewer churches may come back than you ask for.
queryYesThe topic, question or phrase to look for, in natural language.
church_idNoOptional: restrict the search to one church's sermons.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description directly contradicts the annotation openWorldHint=false by stating a church's absence is not evidence it never preaches on a topic, an open-world caveat. This is a serious inconsistency; otherwise the description would have earned a high score for its rich caveats about opt-in coverage and non-endorsement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a dedicated 'TWO THINGS' block, and a closing pairing note. Each sentence adds value: no filler, and the most important caveats are front-loaded.

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?

Despite the annotation contradiction, the description alone covers what the tool returns (matched sermons per church, closeness, excerpt, timestamp), the opt-in limitation, the ranking semantics, the non-endorsement interpretation, and auth requirements ('No key required'). With no output schema, this is a complete operational guide.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that, though it does mention ranking over closest-matching passages, which is subtly relevant to the limit param. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers and specifies the verb 'searches' plus the resource 'consented sermons', then clarifies the group-by-church behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_sermons and find_churches.

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 states a clear use case ('someone looking for a church home...') and explicitly recommends pairing with find_churches. It does not name when not to use it or alternatives like search_sermons, but the grouping-by-church distinction is enough for an agent to select it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources