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

biblical-linguistics-mcp

by mpduarte
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

word_frequency

Retrieve frequency and distribution statistics for any biblical lexeme by entering its Strong's number.

Instructions

Get frequency and distribution statistics for a lexeme 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": "word_frequency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
strongsYesStrong's number, e.g. 'G3056' or 'H7225'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not specify what 'distribution statistics' entails, whether it includes per-book counts, or any data limitations, leaving significant ambiguity.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with no wasted words. While effective, it could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

The description does not explain what the output will look like or how the distribution data is structured. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap for a tool that returns statistical data.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it gets frequency and distribution statistics for a lexeme by Strong's number. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like lookup_word or search_by_root.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case (when frequency/distribution stats are needed), but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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