Find Bible passages, lexicon entries, original-language terms, and commentary using accent- and case-insensitive full-text queries across a read-only study library.
Full-text search, accent- and case-insensitive. scope: all, translation (BSB text), lexicon (lemmas, transliterations, glosses, definitions), original (Greek/Hebrew words), commentary (all commentary text).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that matching is accent- and case-insensitive, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, or truncation behavior at the default limit of 20.
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?
Two tight clauses with the defining behavior (full-text, accent/case-insensitive) front-loaded before the scope list. No filler, though the scope list could be structured more scannably.
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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no enum on `scope`, the description covers the scope dimension but leaves the query-string semantics and the limit/truncation contract unaddressed, so an agent still has to guess how results are shaped and limited.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the `scope` values (all, translation, lexicon, original, commentary) in prose, which the schema does not, but leaves `text` (matching semantics) and `limit` (truncation behavior) entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (full-text search) plus a distinct behavioral trait (accent- and case-insensitive), and enumerates the corpora it spans. That partially separates it from siblings like `word`, `dictionary`, and `commentary`, though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.
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?
The scope enumeration implies that a caller can target a single corpus instead of the default, which is a usage hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer `word`, `dictionary`, or `commentary` over the scope-specific search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.