get_commentariesList the commentaries and cross-references on a passage (e.g. Rashi, Targum, quoting commentaries) from Sefaria's link graph. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Textual reference, e.g. "Genesis.1.1", "Shabbat.2a". | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25, max 100). | |
| category | No | Filter to links of this category, case-insensitive (e.g. "Commentary", "Targum"). Default "Commentary". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "ref": "Genesis.1.1"
+ },
+ {
+ "category": "Targum",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "ref": "Shabbat.2a"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the keyless (no authentication needed) aspect, which is meaningful beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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 tool (3 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description provides enough context to understand usage. It could mention default values or return format, but schema covers defaults. Overall, sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal new meaning (e.g., 'quoting commentaries' and example values), but does not significantly extend understanding beyond the schema.
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 commentaries and cross-references on a passage, with specific examples (Rashi, Targum) and a source (Sefaria's link graph). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text or lookup_ref.
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 provides examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_text for the text itself). Usage is implied through the purpose, but no when-not or alternative guidance is given.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). The Sefaria-specific tools are few, making it hard to distinguish between the core functionality and auxiliary utilities.
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_text), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are standalone names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). This mix of patterns makes the set appear haphazard.
With 33 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially given the name 'Sefaria' which implies a focused set for Jewish text access. The vast majority of tools are unrelated to Sefaria, belonging to the Pipeworx ecosystem, making the count inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.
For a server named Sefaria, the tool surface is severely incomplete. Only three tools (get_text, get_commentaries, lookup_ref) directly relate to Jewish texts, missing fundamental operations like search, list books, or manage content. The remaining 30 tools belong to other domains, leaving the core domain under-served.