SoapBox Faith

get_faith_context

Read-only

Read a user's portable 'faith context' to personalize your responses — their denomination, preferred language, faith journey, and ministry interests — shared WITH THE USER'S EXPLICIT CONSENT. Requires the user's consent_token with the 'context:read' scope (bound to this agent). Use it to tailor tone, tradition, and language. It returns only the user's declared profile (never their private prayers or journal).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`consent_token`	Yes	Opaque SoapBox consent token with the 'context:read' scope, bound to your agent key. The user generates it in the SoapBox app. Returns only the user's declared profile (denomination, preferred language, faith journey, ministry interests) — never their private prayers or journal. An invalid, expired, or wrong-scope token returns an authorization error.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses that it requires explicit user consent, operates under a 'context:read' scope bound to the agent, returns only the declared profile, and never exposes private prayers or journal. It also specifies that an invalid/expired/wrong-scope token yields an authorization error.

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 three sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second states the prerequisite, and the third clarifies the returned data and exclusions. Every sentence carries necessary information with no 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, boundary (never private prayers/journal), consent requirement, and error condition. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.

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 a detailed description of consent_token, including its scope, binding, and error behavior, so the description adds little beyond repetition. The description reinforces the token's purpose ('Requires the user's consent_token') but does not introduce new parameter semantics given 100% schema coverage.

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 'Read a user's portable faith context,' a specific verb+resource statement, and enumerates the profile fields (denomination, language, journey, interests). It also states its purpose ('to personalize your responses'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with prayers, sermons, or payments.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it to tailor tone, tradition, and language,' which indicates the suitable context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke 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 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

A4.2/5.0

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

Need Help?