Get Bible text for a reference like 'John 3:16', 'John 3:16-18', 'Genesis 1', or 'Tobit 4:5' (Apocrypha requires version='WEB'). Versions: BSB, WEB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | BSB | |
| reference | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note the Apocrypha version constraint, which is useful, and lists available versions (BSB, WEB). However, it doesn't disclose the output format/structure, what happens for invalid references, or whether returned text includes section headings or verse numbers. With zero annotations, more behavioral context is expected.
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?
Extremely concise and efficient. Two sentences cover purpose, examples, a constraint, and supported versions. No wasted words, all information is relevant and immediately useful.
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?
This is a relatively simple tool (2 params, 1 required), and the description covers purpose, examples, version options, and an edge-case constraint. An output schema exists, so return format doesn't need documenting. Given the low complexity, this description is reasonably complete, though it could note error behavior for malformed references.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains the 'reference' parameter well with examples ('John 3:16', ranges, books) and the 'version' parameter with supported values (BSB, WEB). However, it doesn't fully compensate — e.g., it doesn't explain what happens with ambiguous references, book abbreviations, or chapter-only queries beyond one example ('Genesis 1').
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 gets Bible text for a reference, with specific verb+resource ('Get Bible text') and concrete examples. It includes reference format examples and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on passage retrieval, which contrasts with tools like get_cross_references, get_entity, or word_study.
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 gives clear context on when to use it (to fetch Bible text by reference) with concrete format examples. It also includes a usage constraint for Apocrypha (requires version='WEB'). It doesn't explicitly exclude cases that belong to siblings (like word_study or get_cross_references), but the purpose is clear enough that distinctions are implied.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.