Skip to main content
Glama

orthotomeo

by io.github.jrainsberger

Lexicon lookup

lexicon_lookup
Read-only

Resolves a disambiguated Strong's number (dStrong) to its lexicon entry: lemma, transliteration, gloss, and - for a Greek entry only - a fuller definition (Abbott-Smith 1922, Public Domain). A Hebrew entry's definition field is always omitted: it is abridged BDB via Online Bible, which requires permission not yet obtained, so only its gloss is ever returned. Not to be confused with the get_verse/get_passage tools, which resolve a Ref to translated verse text, not a dStrong to a dictionary entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dstrongYesa disambiguated Strong's number, e.g. G0859, H7225G

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
glossYes
lemmaYes
dstrongYes
languageYes
translitYes
definitionNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: Hebrew entries lack definition due to permission issues, while Greek entries include a fuller definition. This goes beyond annotations and explains expected output differences.

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 compact (4 sentences), front-loaded with main purpose, and every sentence adds necessary detail: purpose, return fields, special behavior for Hebrew entries, and disambiguation from siblings. No redundant text.

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 complexity (two entry types, permissions issue) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the Hebrew vs Greek distinction and that definition is omitted for Hebrew. No additional context needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'dstrong' described as 'a disambiguated Strong's number'. The description adds value by providing example formats (e.g., G0859, H7225G) and clarifying what the tool does with the parameter, but the schema already captures the essential 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 resolves a disambiguated Strong's number to a lexicon entry, listing specific fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools get_verse/get_passage by contrasting what they resolve (Ref to verse text) vs. this tool (dStrong to dictionary entry).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly warns not to confuse with get_verse/get_passage, providing when-not-to-use and naming alternatives. It also gives context about Hebrew vs Greek entries, helping the agent choose correctly.

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