Skip to main content
Glama
DataCraftsmanAU

DataCraftsmanAU/vineverse-mcp

Get the original-language words behind a passage

get_interlinear
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek behind each English word of a Bible verse or chapter by entering an OSIS reference, with transliteration, morphology, and Strong’s number.

Instructions

The Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek behind the English, word by word, for one verse or a whole chapter. This is a REVERSE interlinear: entries are in English order and each carries the range of English words it produced, so a word in the translation can be traced to the word it renders. Each entry gives the original, its transliteration, its morphology spelled out, and its Strong’s number; lexeme is present only where the bundle carries a document for that number — the lexicon holds the words that spell a biblical name plus their roots, not all 8,674 Strong’s entries, and there is no Greek lexicon at all. Five verses carry no data because the two Berean editions disagree about their wording; they are named in the changelog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
osisYesOSIS reference — a verse ("John.3.16") or a whole chapter ("John.3")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versesYes
licenceNo
referenceYes
translationYes
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: what each entry contains, when lexeme is present, the lack of a Greek lexicon and incomplete Strong's coverage, and the specific five-verse limitation due to Berean edition disagreements. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The first sentence is a clear and immediate statement of the tool's purpose. Every subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining reverse-interlinear ordering, entry fields, lexeme availability, lexicon limitations, and a known data gap. It is dense without being wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter, clear output schema presence, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, what it returns, what the limits of the data are, and where to find more detail about exceptions. No important operational context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the osis parameter already described as a verse or chapter reference and examples provided. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'one verse or a whole chapter.' It adds meaningful context about the input's scope, but since the schema already carries the core parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: retrieving Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words behind the English word-by-word, for either a verse or a whole chapter. The phrase 'REVERSE interlinear' and the emphasis on tracing English words back to their source distinguish it clearly from the surrounding scripture/searching tools.

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 clearly implies the tool is for original-language analysis of a single verse or chapter, and the schema enforces an OSIS reference. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_passage or get_vocabulary, nor does it state when one would prefer this over an alternative, so usage guidance beyond scope is mostly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DataCraftsmanAU/vineverse-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server