Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hebrew-il-mcp

hebrew-il-mcp

by Shtibel1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Hebrew text utilities

hebrew_text_tools

Strip niqqud and cantillation marks from Hebrew text and calculate its standard gematria value.

Instructions

Strip niqqud and cantillation from Hebrew text and compute its standard gematria value.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "hebrew_text_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not state that this is a side-effect-free computation, nor what happens with mixed or non-Hebrew input, nor whether stripping is idempotent. For a bundled two-in-one transform, that leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why the bundling and output behavior stay ambiguous.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should explain what comes back — presumably the stripped string and a numeric gematria value — but it does not. For a tool that performs two distinct transformations, the return shape is a material omission.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only clue: 'Hebrew text' implies the input should be Hebrew script. That is a useful hint but adds nothing about handling of already-stripped text, mixed scripts, or length limits.

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 names two concrete operations with specific resources: stripping niqqud/cantillation and computing gematria. That is far more informative than the generic tool name 'hebrew_text_tools'. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling 'hebrew_numeral', which plausibly overlaps with the gematria half.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus 'hebrew_numeral' or any other sibling. It also does not say whether both operations always run together or whether the caller can request only one, leaving the agent to guess at invocation intent.

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