list_booksLists all 66 KJV protocanon books with chapter counts and testament, giving AI assistants a structured index for Bible navigation and citable book references.
The 66 books of the KJV protocanon with chapter counts and testament.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: the exact scope is a fixed set of 66 books (no pagination or filtering concerns) and the payload includes chapter counts and testament, which tells an agent what it will actually receive.
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 economical sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is a noun fragment rather than a full sentence and uses the jargon 'protocanon', which is slightly less immediately parseable than plain phrasing would be.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by stating both the exact scope (66 books, KJV) and the fields returned (chapter counts, testament). Only the precise return structure or field naming is left unspecified, a minor gap for a tool this simple.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a parameterless enumeration by describing a fixed, complete set of 66 books.
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 (the 66 books of the KJV protocanon) and the fields returned (chapter counts, testament), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_passage and search_kjv. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list', so the action is inferred from the tool name rather than stated, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied by the returned content: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating books and chapter counts rather than retrieving text or searching verses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.