Verify a quotation against Bible sources and return exact, normalized, or not_found to show whether wording, accents, punctuation, or case differ.
Check a quotation against the sources. verdict 'exact' = appears verbatim; 'normalized' = matches only if accents, punctuation and case are ignored (so it was altered); 'not_found'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the exact meaning of each verdict, including that 'normalized' means the quote was altered. It does not describe source scope or error behavior, so it is not a 5.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed by concise verdict definitions that directly affect interpretation.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the possible verdicts. It leaves some ambiguity about which sources are checked, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.
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?
There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%. The description identifies the parameter semantically as the quotation to check, but it does not add formatting details or constraints beyond what the parameter name implies.
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 and resource: 'Check a quotation against the sources.' It also defines the three possible verdicts, so the agent can distinguish this verification tool from siblings like search or sources.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: use it to verify whether a quotation appears in the sources. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search or sources, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.