get_planGet the full detail of one study plan: its title, description, total length, and the day-by-day study schedule (first 7 days shown). Pass a plan id from a browse_subject link (the final path segment, e.g. "jonah_and_the_whale").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan id, e.g. "daily_chapter" or "parashat-korach-weekly-torah-portion-study-11a6e434" (the final segment of a plan link). | |
| language | No | ISO language code (default "en"). |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields and explicitly notes that only the first 7 days of the schedule are shown, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.
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 focused sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and output, the second gives essential usage context for the plan id. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.
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 is complete for a simple lookup tool: it lists the return fields and the id source. It does not clarify whether more than 7 days can be retrieved, but given the sibling tools and simplicity, this is a minor gap. No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of return fields is helpful.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the plan id (from a browse_subject link, final path segment) and provides a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema, making parameter semantics clearer.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('study plan'), and explicitly enumerates what is included: title, description, total length, and the first 7 days of the schedule. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chapter and get_verse.
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?
Provides practical guidance by explaining that the plan id comes from a browse_subject link and that the final path segment is the id, with an example. This implies the appropriate usage context (after browsing subjects), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.
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.