Look up a Strong's Greek/Hebrew lexicon entry (lemma, transliteration, gloss, definition).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strongs_number | Yes | A Strong's number: 'G' + digits for Greek (New Testament) or 'H' + digits for Hebrew (Old Testament). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating the content of the lexicon entry (lemma, transliteration, gloss, definition), giving the agent insight into the return data. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.
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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it efficiently lists the key output fields without unnecessary detail. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
The tool is a simple single-parameter lookup. The description covers the input (Strong's number), the lexicons (Greek/Hebrew), and the expected output (lemma, transliteration, gloss, definition). Given the annotations and schema, the description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 the strongs_number parameter with pattern and examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema carries the semantic weight, so a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a Strong's Greek/Hebrew lexicon entry' with the specific data fields (lemma, transliteration, gloss, definition). This specific verb+resource combination distinctly identifies its purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_verse or search_sermons.
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 usage by defining what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over others, though the unique purpose makes the context fairly clear.
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.