get_chapterReturn the full text of a chapter (every verse) from the Hebrew Bible / Tanach. Use list_books first to get valid English book names; see the language enum for available languages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | English book name, e.g. "Genesis", "Psalms", "Isaiah". | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number (1-based). | |
| language | No | ISO language code (default "en"). Use "he" for Hebrew. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope (full chapter, every verse) but does not mention error handling, output format details, or any operational constraints like rate limits. For a read-only retrieval tool, the lack of side-effect warnings is acceptable, but additional behavioral context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides a critical prerequisite and reinforces the schema's language enum. There is no redundant or fluff content, front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, identifies the required prerequisite (list_books), and mentions language options. It lacks explicit output structure guidance, but the phrase 'full text of a chapter' provides a basic return description. Given the tool's relative simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, this is adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and enums, providing 100% coverage. The description adds a prerequisite tip about list_books for the book parameter, but the language enum reference merely duplicates schema information. With high schema coverage, the description adds limited parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('chapter from the Hebrew Bible / Tanach'), explicitly noting it returns every verse, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_verse. This provides clear, unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs users to call list_books first to obtain valid book names, and points to the language enum for available languages. It does not explicitly name get_verse as an alternative, but the phrase 'every verse' implies it differs from the single-verse sibling tool. This is clear context though not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing books/subjects for discovery, fetching a chapter or verse, browsing subjects, and retrieving study plan details. There is no ambiguity between chapter and verse retrieval, nor between listing and browsing. The separation between list_subjects (category codes) and browse_subject (content within a category) is clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: browse_subject, get_chapter, get_plan, get_verse, list_books, list_subjects. The verbs are consistently lowercase imperative verbs ('browse', 'get', 'list'), and nouns are singular for direct resources and plural for list operations. This makes the naming fully predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing access to biblical texts and study plans. The count comfortably sits within the ideal 3-15 range, and each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core workflows: discovering available books and subjects, reading any verse or chapter, and exploring study plans. A minor gap is the lack of a search tool for finding specific passages or topics, but this is not essential given the browse and list capabilities. For a read-only content API, the coverage is solid.