Look up original Greek/Hebrew root meanings, transliterations, and definitions with Strong's numbers for accurate biblical word study.
Look up original Greek/Hebrew root etymology, transliteration, and definition via Strong's Concordance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word_id | Yes | Strong's number (e.g. 'H1254', 'G26') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup and names the returned data types, but it leaves out behavioral details such as how invalid or unsupported Strong's numbers are handled and whether both Greek and Hebrew entries are always available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no wasted words or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately names the returned content: etymology, transliteration, and definition. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the boundary with get_strongs_etymology or describe behavior for unrecognized word_id values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents word_id thoroughly with a description and examples ('H1254', 'G26'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description's mention of Greek/Hebrew and Strong's reinforces the parameter meaning but does not add meaningful new semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and a clear resource: original Greek/Hebrew root etymology, transliteration, and definition via Strong's Concordance. It is clear about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_strongs_etymology or analyze_greek_hebrew_word.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like get_strongs_etymology or explain which scenarios favor this lookup, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.