citeRenders Citations (from any of the above tools) as quoted, fully-attributed Markdown bullets - the only sanctioned bridge from a query result to pastable study-document text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citations | Yes | Citations previously returned by another tool call, to render as a pastable reference block |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| engine | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool outputs Markdown bullets and is the only sanctioned bridge to pastable text, offering behavioral 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and output format. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description adequately explains the input source and output format. An output schema is present, so return values are covered externally.
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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'citations' described. The description adds that citations come from other tools, which is already implied in the schema description, so minimal additional meaning.
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 verb 'Renders', the object 'Citations', and the output format 'quoted, fully-attributed Markdown bullets'. It also distinguishes this tool as 'the only sanctioned bridge', setting it apart from sibling tools.
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 indicates that citations come from 'any of the above tools' and that this tool is the only way to get pastable text, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.