Skip to main content
Glama

orthotomeo

by io.github.jrainsberger

Parse morphology

parse
Read-only

Returns dStrong + expanded morphology (via the T6 morph_codes table) for every word in a verse, or one word if word is given. LXX corpora (Swete, OSS-LXX-lemma) are always Flagged - neither carries morphology.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds important context that LXX corpora are flagged and do not carry morphology, which is behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction found.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality and special LXX behavior. It could mention the 1-based word indexing (already in schema) but overall is complete for a read-only parsing tool.

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%, so each parameter is described. The description adds value by clarifying the effect of the 'word' parameter (omitting returns all words) and the limitation on LXX corpora. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns dStrong and expanded morphology for every word in a verse or a single word if specified. It distinguishes itself by focusing on morphological parsing, contrasting with sibling tools like lemmatize or interlinear.

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?

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for morphological parsing but lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools.

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