Skip to main content
Glama

orthotomeo

by io.github.jrainsberger

Resolve reference

resolve_ref
Read-only

Reports, for every per-verse content edition (KJV, ASV, WEB, BSB, Brenton, TAGNT, TAHOT, Swete, OSS-LXX-lemma), whether a canonical reference has a counterpart there and where. Cross-edition divergence (a T4b merge/renumber/divide, or a reference simply missing from an edition) is reported as Caveats - never a silent shift.

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYes
caveatsYes
addressesYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds that cross-edition divergence is reported as Caveats never a silent shift, and lists the specific editions checked, providing behavioral context.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 complexity of cross-edition reference checking, the description is fairly complete, listing editions and caveats. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed.

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?

All three parameters (book, chapter, verse) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, and the description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 reports whether a canonical reference has a counterpart across multiple Bible editions, and mentions specific editions and handling of cross-edition divergence, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_passage or cite.

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 implies the tool is used for checking references across editions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_passage or attestation, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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