Finds verses connected to a Bible reference through shared original-language words, ranked by shared-word count, to surface related passages for study.
[WORD · door] Verses connected to a reference by SHARED original words (Strong's) — the dots, connected; deterministic and found, ranked by shared-word count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits beyond structured data: the result is 'deterministic and found' and it is 'ranked by shared-word count'. It says nothing about permissions, limits, or error behavior, so it is only partial.
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?
A single dense sentence with no wasted clauses; the mechanism and ranking are front-loaded. The bracketed '[WORD · door]' tag adds noise rather than value.
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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core output ordering, but with zero annotation coverage and an unspecified parameter format it leaves gaps an agent must guess at.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'ref' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'ref' is 'a reference' and gives no format, syntax, or example (e.g., 'John 3:16'), leaving the parameter largely undocumented.
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 names a specific resource (verses) and mechanism (connected by shared original-language words / Strong's), so an agent knows what it produces. However, it lacks a verb and the leading tag '[WORD · door]' is cryptic, and it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tsk_cross_references'.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternatives despite an obvious competing sibling (tsk_cross_references). The agent must infer selection from the mechanism alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.