Look up a public-domain KJV Bible verse by book, chapter, and verse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | Canonical book name (English). Accepts common forms like 'John', 'Psalms', '1 Corinthians', 'Song of Solomon'. | |
| verse | Yes | Verse number within the chapter (1-based). | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number (1-based). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the context that the verse is from the public-domain KJV translation, which clarifies the source. However, it does not describe error behavior or the exact return format beyond the implication that the verse text is returned.
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 conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the action and scope, making it highly concise.
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 simple read-only nature confirmed by annotations and the complete parameter schema, the description adequately covers the core use case. It specifies the translation and addressing scheme, though it doesn't detail return format or error handling. For a tool of this simplicity, this is sufficient.
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 fully describes all three required parameters with descriptions and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely repeats the parameter names ('book, chapter, and verse') without adding additional semantics, so 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'look up' and clearly identifies the resource as a public-domain KJV Bible verse addressed by book, chapter, and verse. This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_scripture or lookup_strongs, which have different purposes.
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 use when a specific verse is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like verify_scripture or get_lectionary. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tools mentioned.
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.