get_verseReturn the text of one specific verse from the Hebrew Bible / Tanach, e.g. Genesis 1:1. Use list_books for valid English book names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | English book name, e.g. "Genesis". | |
| verse | Yes | Verse number (1-based). | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior of returning text for a specific verse, which is straightforward and non-destructive, but does not mention error handling, language variations, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but lacks depth.
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?
The description is exactly two sentences: purpose and example first, then a practical usage tip. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary verbiage.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (the verse text) and provides an example. It could mention the language parameter or the alternative get_chapter tool, but the schema fills those gaps, making it fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
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 all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful composite example and a tip about using list_books for book names, but these are minor supplements to already well-documented schema fields.
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 clearly states the tool returns the text of one specific verse from the Hebrew Bible/Tanach, with a concrete example (Genesis 1:1). It implicitly distinguishes from get_chapter by emphasizing 'one specific verse,' but does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools.
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 implies usage when needing a single verse and provides a helpful tip to use list_books for valid book names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_chapter or other alternatives, leaving usage context partially implicit.
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.