Skip to main content
Glama

orthotomeo

by io.github.jrainsberger

Search concordance (phrase)

concord_phrase
Read-only

Complete-or-fail multi-word concordance: every occurrence, within one verse, of tokens (lemma strings) appearing in order within window intervening words of each other (window=0 = strictly adjacent). This is the tool for a phrase query like εἰς ἄφεσιν. This deployment caps one concordance result at 2000 occurrences and refuses anything broader, reporting the exact match count in the error. Call count first when a query might be broad - count is never capped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
corpusYesword-tagged corpus to search: TAGNT, TAHOT, Swete, OSS-LXX-lemma
tokensYesordered lemma strings to find co-occurring within one verse, e.g. ["εἰς","ἄφεσις"]
windowYesmax words allowed between consecutive tokens; 0 = strictly adjacent

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engineYes
sourcesNo
citationsYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses a critical behavioral constraint: the 2000-occurrence cap, the error reporting of exact match count, and the recommendation to pre-check with count. It also details the matching logic (within one verse, ordered, window). No contradiction with 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 three sentences with front-loaded main function. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, example, constraint, and guidance. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential behavioral aspects (cap, error, pre-check) and matching rules. Complete for the tool's complexity and context signals.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces meaning (e.g., 'window=0 = strictly adjacent') but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a multi-word concordance for phrases, specifying that it finds occurrences of ordered lemma strings within a verse and within a given window. It provides an example query and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'concord_lemma' by emphasizing phrase vs. single lemma.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for phrase queries) and advises calling the 'count' tool first for broad queries to avoid cap frustration. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the cap behavior implicitly sets boundaries.

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