Get the Western (Revised Common Lectionary / Roman) liturgical season, liturgical color, RCL year (A/B/C), and any major feast for a date (defaults to today). Useful for date-aware, season-appropriate faith content. Daily readings are not included (those tables are licensed). No key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today in UTC. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that no key is required, that it defaults to today, and that daily readings are excluded due to licensing. This provides useful context beyond 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?
Three short sentences with essential information front-loaded. No redundancy, every clause adds value.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return values, default behavior, exclusions, and authentication. It is fully sufficient given the low complexity.
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 covers the single 'date' parameter with format, pattern, examples, and description. The tool description repeats the default-to-today behavior but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: Western liturgical season, color, RCL year, and major feast for a date. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_sermon or get_verse by focusing on liturgical calendar data.
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?
States 'Useful for date-aware, season-appropriate faith content' which gives context. Excludes daily readings with the note about licensing, implicitly steering users elsewhere for readings. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools, so not a 5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.