compare_versions
Show a verse or short range in both BSB and WEB side by side.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
bible-mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't mention whether versions differ in language/style, what 'side by side' means in terms of formatting/output, or whether the tool performs translation-level comparison or just text display. The description is minimal on behavior beyond the basic display action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise given the tool's single parameter and straightforward purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one simple parameter and an output schema exists, so basic completeness is achieved. However, with no annotations and no param-format documentation, the description leaves some gaps around reference format expectations and range limits. The output schema helps, but the description could clarify the 'short range' boundary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter (reference). The description mentions 'verse or short range' which gives some hint that reference accepts a passage specifier, but it doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., 'John 3:16', 'John 3:16-18', book abbreviations). The description adds a bit of context but doesn't fully compensate for the zero coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows a verse or short range in two specific translations (BSB and WEB) side by side, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It's distinct from siblings like get_passage (single version) and get_interlinear (word-by-word analysis), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for cross-version comparison but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'short range' qualifier hints at a limit but doesn't state what counts as short, leaving the agent to guess the boundary between this and other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct function: text retrieval, interlinear, word study, cross-refs, citations, entities, search, similarity, reading works, and corpus info. Even search, semantic_search, and find_similar are clearly differentiated by input type (keyword, theme, passage reference) and purpose.
Naming Consistency3/5
The set mixes verb-prefixed names like get_passage and read_work with noun-style names like corpus_info and word_study, plus bare verbs like search. All use snake_case, but the lack of a uniform prefix or consistent verb-noun pattern reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized study server. Each tool addresses a distinct research need, from scripture retrieval to original-language analysis, without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The surface covers the full biblical research workflow: text retrieval, comparison, interlinear, word study, cross-references, patristic citations, entities, multiple search modes, and reading related prose works. Search and semantic_search fill discovery gaps, and corpus_info provides structural orientation.