list_subjectsList the subjects (categories) you can browse, such as the Weekly Torah Portion, Holidays, Daily Study, Psalms (Tehillim), Bible Stories, and Characters. Each returns a code to pass to browse_subject. Call this to discover what is available before browsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | ISO language code (default "en"). Subject browsing is curated per language. |
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 must disclose behavior. It explains that each result returns a code usable by browse_subject, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the response format. This is adequate but not rich.
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 three concise sentences: first gives purpose and examples, second explains the return behavior, third states when to call. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, the return code behavior, and the usage workflow. It could slightly elaborate on the exact output structure, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the single optional parameter with a detailed description and enum values. The tool description does not add extra parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 lists browseable subjects (categories) with concrete examples, and distinguishes it from the sibling browse_subject by explaining it returns codes for that follow-up tool. The verb+resource is specific: list subjects.
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 says 'Call this to discover what is available before browsing' and instructs that each returned code is passed to browse_subject, providing clear workflow context. It does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended use.
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.