Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
biblical-linguistics-mcp

biblical-linguistics-mcp

by mpduarte
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

search_by_root

Find biblical verses that share a common lexeme or root by searching a Strong's number, with optional filters by book or testament.

Instructions

Find verses sharing a lexeme/root by Strong's number

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "strongs": "<strongs>"
    },
    "name": "search_by_root"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookNoFilter by book name (optional)
strongsYesStrong's number to search for
testamentNoFilter by testament (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, return format, limits, or side effects. For a search tool, minimal behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with action and target. Efficient and to the point with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks return format information, no indication of result structure or pagination. No output schema to compensate. For a search tool, these omissions create ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds context that Strong's number represents a lexeme/root, clarifying search logic beyond schema. However, it does not elaborate further on book or testament parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'Find verses', specific resource 'sharing a lexeme/root', and input 'by Strong's number'. Distinguishes from siblings like parse_verse, lookup_word, and cross_references, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings such as reverse_lookup or cross_reference_tsk. Description only states functionality without usage context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools