list_booksList every book available in this corpus with its English name, localized name, and the link to its first chapter. Call this to discover valid book names for get_chapter / get_verse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | ISO language code for the localized names (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 full burden. It clearly states what the tool does (returns list with specific fields) and its purpose (name discovery). It does not mention edge cases like sorting or pagination, but for a simple list-read operation, the behavior is fully disclosed for practical purposes.
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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and output; the second gives a practical use case. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simple nature (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers what to expect from the tool and how to use it in a workflow. It names the output fields, which is sufficient for a list operation.
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 language parameter already described as ISO code for localized names. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'localized name' but adds no new semantics beyond linking the parameter to the output.
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 action ('List every book available') and details the output fields (English name, localized name, first chapter link). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_chapter and get_verse by framing itself as the discovery tool for book names.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this to discover valid book names for get_chapter / get_verse,' providing a clear use case and linking to related tools. This is direct when-to-use guidance that a sibling-focused alternative lacks.
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.