Look up original Greek and Hebrew word origins by Strong's number to clarify biblical meanings and distinguish synonyms.
Comprehensive Strong's Concordance, BDB/Thayer lexicon, and Trench's Synonyms (e.g. Agape vs Phileo, Logos vs Rhema, Hesed, Shalom).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strongs_id | Yes | Strong's ID (e.g. 'G26', 'G0025', 'H1254', 'H7225') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It mentions data sources and examples, but does not disclose what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, how results are structured, or any limitations. The examples hint at word distinctions, but that is not enough to predict the tool's behavior.
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 compact sentence with no filler and includes useful examples. However, it is structured as a marketing-style resource list rather than a function description that opens with a verb and expected result.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens when the tool is called. It does not clearly state that this is a lexical/etymological lookup, what response the agent can expect, or how it differs from the many sibling tools. The ambiguity of 'Comprehensive Strong's Concordance' could mislead an agent into thinking this is a concordance search rather than a word-study lookup.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with clear examples ('G26', 'G0025', 'H1254', 'H7225'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the Strong's context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource domain—Strong's Concordance, BDB/Thayer lexicons, and Trench's Synonyms—and gives helpful examples, so an agent can infer what content is involved. However, it never states the action 'get etymology' or explicitly says what the tool returns for a given strongs_id; it is more of a content summary than a behavioral description.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings get_strongs_definition and analyze_greek_hebrew_word. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and vague resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.