Skip to main content
Glama
djayatillake

Study Bible MCP Server

by djayatillake
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

get_textual_variant

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves textual variants for Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament, showing differing Masoretic and LXX readings with manuscript evidence and scholarly consensus.

Instructions

USE THIS whenever a New Testament writer quotes an OT verse and the wording does not match the Masoretic Hebrew Text — or whenever lookup_verse emits the LXX-quotation hint.

WHAT IT RETURNS for a given verse reference:

  • The Masoretic Hebrew (MT) reading + original Hebrew

  • The variant reading (typically the LXX form quoted in the NT, or a DSS reading that differs from MT)

  • The variant's original-language form (Greek or Hebrew)

  • Manuscript witnesses for each reading (LXX, DSS scrolls — e.g. 1QIsa^a, 4QDeut^q, Mur88 — Masoretic Text, NT quotation citation)

  • Scholarly consensus on which reading is older / how the divergence arose

  • The HLT preferred reading (which form the Heiser Literal Translation follows) + the rationale

The HLT's principle: when the NT directly quotes the LXX form of an OT verse, the LXX form is the authoritative reading for Christian Scripture — apostolic endorsement overrides text-critical priority. So for verses like Psalm 40:6 / Hebrews 10:5, Isaiah 61:1 / Luke 4:18, Amos 9:12 / Acts 15:17, the HLT follows the LXX form in the body and footnotes the MT.

USE THIS when:

  • Explaining why a NT OT quotation does not match the modern English OT

  • Discussing Hebrews 10:5-7, Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 12:20-21, Acts 15:17, Luke 4:18-19, Luke 3:6, Matthew 21:16, Romans 9:27-29, Romans 10:20, Romans 15:12, Romans 2:24, Acts 7:43, Acts 8:32-33, Acts 13:41, 1 Peter 4:18, Ephesians 4:26, Luke 3:36, or the OT verses they quote

  • The user asks "did the Masoretes edit Christ out?" — point them at the actual textual data instead of speculation

  • Working on HLT translation for any verse where the NT follows a different form than the Hebrew

PAIRS WITH: lookup_verse (which emits a hint pointing here when a verse has a quote-hint or variant row).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceYesBible reference — either the OT verse (e.g., 'Psalm 40:6', 'Deuteronomy 32:43', 'Isaiah 61:1') or the NT verse that quotes it (e.g., 'Hebrews 10:5', 'Hebrews 1:6', 'Luke 4:18'). Both sides return the same variant row.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds detailed behavioral context: what data it returns (MT reading, variant, witnesses, scholarly consensus, HLT preference) and the principle behind HLT's choices, all consistent with a safe read operation.

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?

The description is long but well-structured with bold headings and bullet points, prioritizing key usage guidance upfront. While every section adds value, it could be slightly tighter; however, the clarity and organization justify the length.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and the annotations cover safety, the description comprehensively explains return fields, usage scenarios, and underlying principles. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how to use it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'reference' with a description. The description adds value by clarifying that the reference can be either an OT or NT verse and that both return the same variant row, enriching semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'USE THIS whenever...' and clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve textual variants when a New Testament writer quotes an Old Testament verse with wording differing from the Masoretic Text. It specifies the trigger condition and differentiates from siblings by naming 'lookup_verse' as a complementary tool.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance with a bulleted list of specific scenarios (e.g., explaining mismatches, discussing particular verses). It states when to use the tool and pairs it with 'lookup_verse', making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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/djayatillake/studybible-mcp'

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