Skip to main content
Glama

SoapBox Faith

by io.github.alansafahi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

score_doctrinal_fit

Read-only

Assess how well a statement aligns with a named Christian tradition's historic doctrinal positions (e.g. Reformed, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox). Returns an impartial alignment rating, score, summary, and the relevant doctrinal loci. Analytical, not proselytizing. No key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statementYesThe theological statement or claim to assess.
traditionYesThe Christian tradition or denomination to assess alignment against.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / statement / description
      Previous value: -"The statement/claim to assess (max 1500 chars)."New value: +"The theological statement or claim to assess."
    • addedInput schema / properties / statement / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Salvation is by faith alone, apart from works."
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / statement / maxLength
      Added value: +1500
    • addedInput schema / properties / statement / minLength
      Added value: +3
    • changedInput schema / properties / tradition / description
      Previous value: -"The tradition/denomination to assess against."New value: +"The Christian tradition or denomination to assess alignment against."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tradition / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Reformed",
+  "Roman Catholic",
+  "Pentecostal",
+  "Eastern Orthodox"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it returns an impartial rating, score, summary, and doctrinal loci, and explicitly states it is analytical and not proselytizing. These details clarify the tool's tone and output, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two focused sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second covers output, impartiality, and access requirements. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the return values (rating, score, summary, loci) and notes the impartial, analytical nature. It does not mention potential errors or limitations, but for a read-only, non-destructive tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, with both parameters fully described and examples provided. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so it relies on the schema to carry the parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool assesses doctrinal alignment with named Christian traditions, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_scripture by focusing on tradition-based evaluation rather than scriptural verification.

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 clear context on the tool's appropriate use: it's analytical, not proselytizing, and requires no key, implying open access. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, falling slightly short of full guidance.

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

All SoapBox Faith toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources