hebrew-il-mcp

Number to Hebrew numeral

hebrew_numeral

Convert a positive integer into its Hebrew numeral form (e.g., 15 → ט״ו), with optional thousands handling for calendar years.

Instructions

Write a positive integer as a Hebrew numeral (e.g. 15 -> ט״ו, 5787 -> תשפ״ז).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "hebrew_numeral"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes
`keepThousands`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the key behavioral contract — input must be a positive integer — and shows the output shape through examples, but says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range or non-integer input, or how gematria letter choice works.

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, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by worked examples. Nothing is padded and the examples do the explanatory work efficiently.

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?

For a simple pure-conversion tool with no output schema, the examples largely cover the return-value question. However, the undocumented 'keepThousands' flag and the absence of any error/range behavior leave a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 0% across two parameters, so the description should compensate. It partially does for 'number' by restating the positive-integer constraint, but 'keepThousands' is never mentioned — an agent cannot tell from description or schema what toggling it does (e.g. whether 5787 renders as תשפ״ז or with a thousands marker).

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 gives a specific verb ('Write ... as') and resource ('Hebrew numeral') and anchors it with two concrete conversion examples (15 -> ט״ו, 5787 -> תשפ״ז). It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling set (phone, ID, VAT, date, text tools) by subject matter, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is strongly implied by the examples and the 'positive integer' constraint, so an agent can infer the call conditions, but nothing is stated outright.

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

Deploy Server