Skip to main content
Glama

orthotomeo

by io.github.jrainsberger

Manuscript attestation

attestation
Read-only

Returns the WHNT-style Type/Editions manuscript-tradition columns as neutral text-critical data (e.g. Mark 16:9-20 = Type KO) - which editions carry a word, with no argument for or against a variant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookYesUSFM book code (e.g. GEN, PSA, MAT, REV) or the full English book name, any case (e.g. Genesis, matthew)
wordNo1-based word_no within the verse; omit for every word in the verse
verseYesverse number
corpusYesword-tagged corpus: TAGNT, TAHOT, Swete, OSS-LXX-lemma
chapterYeschapter number

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engineYes
sourcesNo
citationsYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds only the neutral stance ('no argument for or against a variant'). This is minimal additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and neutrality. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are likely documented elsewhere. The description covers the tool's purpose and example usage. However, it could briefly mention that multiple editions are returned, but overall completeness is good given the rich annotations and schema.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description provides an example (Mark 16:9-20) but does not add significant meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

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 returns manuscript-tradition columns showing which editions carry a word, with a concrete example and emphasis on neutrality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like concord_lemma or get_passage by focusing on text-critical data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., concord_lemma for word occurrences). The description implies usage for text-critical analysis but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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

All orthotomeo toolsInspect
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

Each tool targets a distinct operation or output type. Even closely related tools like concord_lemma, concord_phrase, and count have clear differences in what they return (full concordance vs. phrase match vs. tally), and tools like interlinear, parse, and lexicon_lookup are well-differentiated by their descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow multiple patterns: some are single-word verbs (cite, count, parse), others are compound nouns (attestation, interlinear), and some use underscores in verb_noun or noun_noun form (concord_lemma, get_passage, lexicon_lookup). While each name is descriptive, the lack of a uniform convention reduces consistency.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools effectively cover the domain of biblical text analysis: retrieval, concordance, parsing, lexical lookup, attestation, and citation. This count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming, and each tool serves a clear purpose within the workflow.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core operations for biblical study (verse retrieval, morphological analysis, lexicon lookup, concordance, citation). Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of tools for searching by English word or for handling Hebrew texts beyond limited lexicon lookup, but these do not severely hinder typical workflows.

Resources