Skip to main content
Glama

orthotomeo

by io.github.jrainsberger

Get verse text

get_verse
Read-only

Returns verbatim verse text with provenance for one canonical reference, one Citation per requested edition (KJV, ASV, WEB, BSB, Brenton).

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)
verseYesverse number
chapterYeschapter number
editionsYesverse-text editions to fetch verbatim text from: KJV, ASV, WEB, BSB, Brenton

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, so the description's confirmation of returning verbatim text with provenance adds little beyond that. No additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits) are disclosed. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core action and resource, no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned (verbatim text, provenance, one citation per edition). It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and annotation support.

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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Returns', resource 'verse text', scope 'one canonical reference, one Citation per requested edition', and lists specific editions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_passage.

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?

Description implies usage for single verse lookup across multiple editions but does not explicitly explain when to use versus alternatives like get_passage, concord_*, or interlinear. No when-not or alternative guidance provided.

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