Skip to main content
Glama
GodfreyPrince

studybible-tamil-mcp

by GodfreyPrince
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_torah_weave

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify the structurally paired verses for a Torah passage under Moshe Kline's Woven Torah hypothesis, returning horizontal, vertical, and sibling cells.

Instructions

Get the structurally-paired verses for a Torah passage under Moshe Kline's Woven Torah hypothesis.

The Torah is organised as 86 two-dimensional literary units (Genesis–Deuteronomy). Each unit is a grid of cells arranged in rows and columns, and cells are deliberately paired with one another across rows (horizontal partners) and down columns (vertical partners). A verse's weave partners are therefore the passages the hypothesis holds the Torah's author(s) intended to be read alongside it.

Relevant to any passage in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy — particularly for identifying which verses are structurally paired with a passage, for suspected deliberate interweaving (doublets, creation/flood, law parallels), and for comparative readings where the pairing claimed is compositional rather than thematic.

WHAT IT RETURNS:

  • The literary unit the verse sits in (title, format, type, verse span)

  • The cell the verse occupies (row/column label + verse range)

  • Horizontal partner cells (same row, same subdivision, different column)

  • Vertical partner cells (same column, same subdivision, different row)

  • Sibling cells (same row and column, adjacent subdivisions)

  • A short explanation of what each direction of pairing means under Kline's method

The output is a set of structural pointers — verse ranges and their pairing direction — not pre-written interpretation. The text of the partner cells is not included; lookup_verse returns it. Under Kline's method horizontal partners are symmetric parallels (same divine-name register, different thematic tracks) and vertical partners are a progression through registers along a single thematic track; the thematic content of each column is not labelled in Kline's dataset.

Only Torah books (Genesis through Deuteronomy) have weave data. Source: Moshe Kline, chaver.com, CC BY 4.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceYesBible reference in Genesis–Deuteronomy (e.g., 'Genesis 6:1', 'Exodus 14:21', 'Leviticus 19:18')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations covering read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: it explains the return format as structural pointers, states that partner text is not included, notes that thematic column labels are absent, and limits coverage to Torah books. This goes well beyond the safety profile declared in 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 description is long but front-loaded and clearly structured with a WHAT IT RETURNS section. The background and return details earn their place because there is no output schema, and no sentence is redundant.

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 complex, niche structural tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, limits, source attribution, and an alternative tool for retrieving partner text. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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% for the sole reference parameter, including format examples. The description reinforces the Torah-only scope but does not add syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get structurally-paired verses) and identifies the exact domain: Torah passages under Moshe Kline's Woven Torah hypothesis. It also distinguishes itself from lookup_verse, which returns the actual text, so an agent can separate this structural tool from sibling retrieval tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists relevant passages (Genesis through Deuteronomy), use cases (structural pairing, suspected interweaving, law parallels), and the key exclusion that pairings are compositional rather than thematic. It also names lookup_verse for text retrieval and warns that only Torah books have weave data.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools