MCP-Server (Model Context Protocol) für den Zugriff auf die koreanische Bibel von bskorea.or.kr.
Funktionen:
⚡️ In-Memory-Caching mit 30-minütiger TTL für schnelle wiederholte Anfragen
🔄 Automatischer Wiederholungsversuch mit exponentiellem Backoff (3 Versuche, 1s→2s→4s) bei vorübergehenden Fehlern
🛡️ Robuste Fehlerbehandlung mit try/catch und eleganten Fallbacks
✅ Eingabevalidierung mit Zod-Schemas
🏥 Health-Check-Tool zur Überwachung
📚 Alle 66 Bücher mit 5 unterstützten Übersetzungen
🔍 Volltextsuche in der gesamten Bibel
Erfordert Node.js 20+
Related MCP server: biblebridge-mcp
Dieser MCP-Server bietet Tools für:
Abrufen vollständiger Kapitel aus der koreanischen Bibel
Abrufen spezifischer Verse oder Versbereiche
Suche nach Versen, die Schlüsselwörter enthalten
Auflisten aller verfügbaren Bücher
Vergleichen von Versen über verschiedene koreanische Übersetzungen hinweg
Global über npm installieren:
npm install -g bible-ko-mcpOder direkt mit npx verwenden (keine Installation erforderlich):
npx -y bible-ko-mcpget-chapterAlle Verse aus einem bestimmten Kapitel abrufen.
Parameter:
book (Zeichenfolge, erforderlich): Buchtitel auf Englisch, Koreanisch oder Buchcode
Beispiele: "Genesis", "창세기", "gen"
chapter (Zahl, erforderlich): Kapitelnummer
version (Zeichenfolge, optional): Bibelübersetzungsversion (Standard: "GAE")
Optionen: "GAE", "GAE1", "NIR", "KOR", "CEV"
Beispiel:
{
"book": "Genesis",
"chapter": 1,
"version": "GAE"
}get-versesSpezifische(n) Vers(e) aus einem Kapitel abrufen.
Parameter:
book (Zeichenfolge, erforderlich): Buchtitel oder Code
chapter (Zahl, erforderlich): Kapitelnummer
verseStart (Zahl, erforderlich): Startversnummer
verseEnd (Zahl, optional): Endversnummer (Standard ist verseStart)
version (Zeichenfolge, optional): Bibelübersetzungsversion (Standard: "GAE")
Beispiel:
{
"book": "John",
"chapter": 3,
"verseStart": 16,
"verseEnd": 17,
"version": "GAE"
}search-bibleNach Versen suchen, die bestimmte Schlüsselwörter enthalten.
Parameter:
query (Zeichenfolge, erforderlich): Suchanfrage auf Koreanisch oder Englisch
version (Zeichenfolge, optional): Bibelübersetzungsversion (Standard: "GAE")
Hinweis: Die Suche umfasst alle 66 Bücher der Bibel mit Fallback-Ergebnissen.
Beispiel:
{
"query": "사랑",
"version": "GAE"
}list-booksAlle verfügbaren Bücher in der Bibel auflisten.
Parameter:
testament (Zeichenfolge, optional): Filtern nach Testament ("OT" oder "NT")
Beispiel:
{
"testament": "NT"
}compare-translationsEinen Vers über verschiedene koreanische Übersetzungen hinweg vergleichen.
Parameter:
book (Zeichenfolge, erforderlich): Buchtitel oder Code
chapter (Zahl, erforderlich): Kapitelnummer
verse (Zahl, erforderlich): Versnummer
versions (Array, optional): Array von Versionscodes zum Vergleich (Standard: alle Versionen)
Beispiel:
{
"book": "John",
"chapter": 3,
"verse": 16,
"versions": ["GAE", "NIR", "KOR"]
}GAE: 개역개정 (Revidierte koreanische Standardversion)
GAE1: 개역한글 (Koreanische revidierte Version)
NIR: 새번역성경 (Neue koreanische revidierte Version)
KOR: 공동번역 (Gemeinsame Übersetzung)
CEV: CEV (Contemporary English Version)
Genesis (창세기): gen
Exodus (출애굽기): exo
Leviticus (레위기): lev
Numbers (민수기): num
Deuteronomy (신명기): deu
... (siehe vollständige Liste im Quellcode)
Matthew (마태복음): mat
Mark (마가복음): mrk
Luke (누가복음): luk
John (요한복음): jhn
Acts (사도행전): act
... (siehe vollständige Liste im Quellcode)
Zur Claude Desktop-Konfiguration hinzufügen:
Bearbeiten Sie ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bible-ko": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"bible-ko-mcp"
]
}
}
}Bearbeiten Sie %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json mit der gleichen Konfiguration wie oben.
Starten Sie nach dem Hinzufügen der Konfiguration Claude Desktop vollständig neu.
Für die lokale Entwicklung:
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/oksure/bible-ko-mcp.git
cd bible-ko-mcp
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Run tests
npm test
# Watch mode (auto-rebuild on changes)
npm run watch
# Run locally
npm startVerwenden Sie für das Testen lokaler Änderungen diese Konfiguration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bible-ko": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/bible-ko-mcp/build/index.js"
]
}
}
}Denken Sie daran, nach Änderungen npm run build auszuführen.
Erstellt mit TypeScript und dem MCP SDK
Verwendet cheerio für HTML-Parsing
Ruft Daten von bskorea.or.kr mit automatischem Wiederholungsversuch (exponentielles Backoff) bei vorübergehenden Fehlern ab
In-Memory-Cache (30-minütige TTL, 2000 Einträge) vermeidet redundante Anfragen
Unterstützt alle 66 Bücher der Bibel
Verarbeitet koreanische und englische Buchtitel
Wöchentliche Sonntagspredigt mit den Seligpreisungen
Fragen Sie Claude: "Gib mir Matthäus 5,3-12 auf Koreanisch (GAE) mit jeder Seligpreisung in einer eigenen Zeile für meinen Predigtentwurf."
Tool: get-verses
Book: Matthew, Chapter: 5, Start: 3, End: 12Karfreitag — Messianische Prophezeiung aus Jesaja
Tool: get-chapter
Book: Isaiah, Chapter: 53, Version: GAEHeiligabendpredigt — Die Weihnachtsgeschichte
Tool: get-verses
Book: Luke, Chapter: 2, Start: 1, End: 20Ostersonntag — Der Auferstehungsbericht
Tool: get-chapter
Book: John, Chapter: 20, Version: GAEHochzeitspredigt — Das Hohelied der Liebe
Tool: get-chapter
Book: 1 Corinthians, Chapter: 13, Version: GAEMissionssonntag — Der Missionsbefehl
Tool: get-verses
Book: Matthew, Chapter: 28, Start: 18, End: 20Vergleich von Johannes 3,16 über Übersetzungen hinweg für Gruppendiskussionen
Tool: compare-translations
Book: John, Chapter: 3, Verse: 16
Versions: ["GAE", "GAE1", "NIR", "KOR"]Thematische Studie: Lebendiger Glaube (야고보서의 믿음)
Tool: get-verses
Book: James, Chapter: 2, Start: 14, End: 26Studie zur Frucht des Geistes
Tool: get-verses
Book: Galatians, Chapter: 5, Start: 22, End: 23Hebräer 11 "Heldengalerie des Glaubens" — vollständiges Kapitel
Tool: get-chapter
Book: Hebrews, Chapter: 11, Version: GAEGeistliche Waffenrüstung — vollständige Passage
Tool: get-verses
Book: Ephesians, Chapter: 6, Start: 10, End: 18Psalm 23 für Trost (Beerdigungsbotschaft, Krankenhausbesuche)
Tool: get-chapter
Book: Psalms, Chapter: 23, Version: GAERömer 8,28-39 — Gewissheit der Liebe Gottes
Tool: get-verses
Book: Romans, Chapter: 8, Start: 28, End: 39Täglicher Bibelvers zum Auswendiglernen
Tool: get-verses
Book: Philippians, Chapter: 4, Start: 13, End: 13Adventsandacht — Das Wort wurde Fleisch
Tool: get-verses
Book: John, Chapter: 1, Start: 1, End: 14Alle Tools akzeptieren koreanische Buchtitel, was es natürlich macht, auf die Schrift auf Koreanisch zu verweisen:
Tool: get-chapter
Book: 시편 (Psalms), Chapter: 23Tool: get-verses
Book: 잠언 (Proverbs), Chapter: 3, Start: 5, End: 6Tool: search-bible
Query: 하나님의 사랑 (God's love)Das HTML-Parsing muss möglicherweise an Website-Updates angepasst werden
Die Suchfunktion ist zu Demozwecken begrenzt, um übermäßige Anfragen zu vermeiden
Einige Übersetzungen sind möglicherweise nicht für alle Bücher verfügbar
Dieses Paket wird automatisch auf NPM veröffentlicht, wenn ein neues GitHub-Release erstellt wird. Siehe PUBLISHING.md für detaillierte Anweisungen.
Beiträge sind willkommen! Bitte zögern Sie nicht, einen Pull Request einzureichen.
MIT
Compare a verse across different Korean translations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | Book name (English or Korean) or code (e.g., 'Genesis', '창세기', 'gen') | |
| verse | Yes | Verse number | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number | |
| versions | No | Array of version codes to compare (default: all versions) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, no side effects, auth requirements). The description is too brief for a tool with no annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, and no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified given lack of annotations; could include more useful context without becoming verbose.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., comparison format, translations listed). It only says 'compare', leaving the agent to guess the return structure and behavior. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'compare verse across translations'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states 'Compare a verse across different Korean translations', which is specific about the verb (compare), resource (verse), and scope (Korean translations). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-chapter' or 'get-verses'.
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 description implies usage context (when you need to compare translations of a specific verse) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context, but no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all verses from a specific chapter of the Korean Bible
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | Book name (English or Korean) or code (e.g., 'Genesis', '창세기', 'gen') | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number | |
| version | No | Bible translation version (default: GAE) | GAE |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieval action, omitting details about read-only nature, output format, or any constraints.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description covers the core functionality but lacks context about output format, edge cases, or integration with sibling tools. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but could be improved.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating the purpose.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'all verses from a specific chapter of the Korean Bible', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-verses (probably individual verses) and search-bible.
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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-verses or compare-translations. Usage context is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get specific verse(s) from a chapter
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | Book name (English or Korean) or code (e.g., 'Genesis', '창세기', 'gen') | |
| chapter | Yes | Chapter number | |
| version | No | Bible translation version (default: GAE) | GAE |
| verseEnd | No | Ending verse number (optional, defaults to verseStart) | |
| verseStart | Yes | Starting verse number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, error handling, or what happens if verses are missing.
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?
The description is a single, brief sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise, but could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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?
The description covers the tool's core purpose but lacks detail on output format, authentication needs, rate limits, or usage scenarios. Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 enum), more context would help the agent.
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 100%, meaning the input schema already details each parameter well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'specific verse(s)', which is accurate but not enhancing.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific verse(s) from a chapter'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'get-chapter' which retrieves an entire chapter, and 'search-bible' which is for searching.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-chapter' for whole chapters or 'search-bible' for searches. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the health status of the Bible Korean MCP server and API connectivity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions checking health and connectivity but does not describe output format or whether authentication is needed. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but lacks detail.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action. No extraneous content.
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 health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys purpose and scope, though it omits output details.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is not needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 clearly states the tool checks health status and API connectivity, a specific verb+resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings which perform Bible data operations.
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?
Implicitly, the tool is for verifying server health before other operations, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided. For a simple health check, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available books in the Bible
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testament | No | Filter by testament (OT/NT, optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose read-only nature or any side effects, but it is safe for a list operation. Minimal disclosure.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is minimally informative. Consider adding context about the return format.
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 list with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but does not explain return values or behavior when no filter is applied. Slightly incomplete.
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 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds no additional information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'all available books in the Bible', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-chapter or search-bible.
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 description implies usage for listing books but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search-bible or get-verses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for verses containing specific keywords. Searches the first 10 chapters of each book — not a full-Bible search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (Korean or English) | |
| version | No | Bible translation version (default: GAE) | GAE |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides the key behavioral limitation (not full-Bible search). It adds value beyond schema by disclosing the restricted scope, but does not address other traits like read-only nature or authentication needs.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each adding distinct value: first states core action, second clarifies critical scope limitation. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and limitation but lacks any mention of output format or return value. Since there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness for an AI agent.
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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (query and version) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('verses containing specific keywords') and clearly distinguishes the tool by stating the limitation (first 10 chapters only), separating it from siblings like get-chapter or get-verses.
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?
It explicitly states the scope (first 10 chapters) and implies this is for quick keyword searches, not a full-Bible search. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get-verses or compare-translations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0compare-translations3 fields changedInput schema / properties / book / descriptionPrevious value: -"Book name (English or Korean) or code"New value: +"Book name (English or Korean) or code (e.g., 'Genesis', '창세기', 'gen')"Input schema / properties / chapter / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / verse / minimumAdded value: +1get-chapter1 field changedInput schema / properties / chapter / minimumAdded value: +1get-verses4 fields changedInput schema / properties / book / descriptionPrevious value: -"Book name (English or Korean) or code"New value: +"Book name (English or Korean) or code (e.g., 'Genesis', '창세기', 'gen')"Input schema / properties / chapter / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / verseEnd / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / verseStart / minimumAdded value: +1health-checkcompare-translationsget-chapterget-verseslist-bookssearch-bibleScored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare-translations for cross-translation comparison, get-chapter for full chapters, get-verses for specific verses, health-check for server status, list-books for book listing, and search-bible for keyword search. No overlap.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase hyphenated verb-noun (compare-translations, get-chapter, get-verses, list-books, search-bible), though health-check is a noun-noun compound, deviating slightly but still readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain, covering reading, searching, and comparison without being overly numerous or too sparse.
Core operations are covered (list books, get chapter/verses, search, compare), but notable gaps exist: no tool to list available translations, and the search is limited to the first 10 chapters of each book, which may hinder full-text discovery.
Bible translations, books, chapters, verses, and search
Read-only BSB and WEB Scripture evidence with provenance, context, comparison, and search.
Scripture-cited answers to any Bible question, plus verse text and study pages, for AI agents.
Bible corpus MCP server: scripture, Greek/Hebrew interlinear data, cross-refs, semantic search.
