用于访问 bskorea.or.kr 韩国圣经的 MCP (Model Context Protocol) 服务器。
功能特点：
⚡️ 内存缓存：30 分钟 TTL，实现快速重复请求
🔄 自动重试：指数退避策略（3 次重试，1秒→2秒→4秒），应对瞬时故障
🛡️ 稳健的错误处理：使用 try/catch 和优雅的降级处理
✅ 输入验证：使用 Zod 模式进行验证
🏥 健康检查：用于监控的工具
📚 全书 66 卷：支持 5 种译本
🔍 全文搜索：覆盖整本圣经
需要 Node.js 20+
Related MCP server: biblebridge-mcp
此 MCP 服务器提供的工具可以：
获取韩国圣经的完整章节
检索特定经文或经文范围
搜索包含关键词的经文
列出所有可用的书卷
比较不同韩国译本的经文
通过 npm 全局安装：
npm install -g bible-ko-mcp或者直接使用 npx（无需安装）：
npx -y bible-ko-mcpget-chapter获取特定章节的所有经文。
参数：
book (string, 必填): 英文、韩文书名或书卷代码
示例: "Genesis", "창세기", "gen"
chapter (number, 必填): 章节号
version (string, 可选): 圣经译本版本 (默认: "GAE")
选项: "GAE", "GAE1", "NIR", "KOR", "CEV"
示例：
{
"book": "Genesis",
"chapter": 1,
"version": "GAE"
}get-verses获取章节中的特定经文。
参数：
book (string, 必填): 书名或代码
chapter (number, 必填): 章节号
verseStart (number, 必填): 起始经文号
verseEnd (number, 可选): 结束经文号 (默认为 verseStart)
version (string, 可选): 圣经译本版本 (默认: "GAE")
示例：
{
"book": "John",
"chapter": 3,
"verseStart": 16,
"verseEnd": 17,
"version": "GAE"
}search-bible搜索包含特定关键词的经文。
参数：
query (string, 必填): 韩文或英文搜索查询
version (string, 可选): 圣经译本版本 (默认: "GAE")
注意： 搜索覆盖圣经全部 66 卷书，并提供回退结果。
示例：
{
"query": "사랑",
"version": "GAE"
}list-books列出圣经中所有可用的书卷。
参数：
testament (string, 可选): 按约过滤 ("OT" 或 "NT")
示例：
{
"testament": "NT"
}compare-translations比较不同韩国译本中的同一节经文。
参数：
book (string, 必填): 书名或代码
chapter (number, 必填): 章节号
verse (number, 必填): 经文号
versions (array, 可选): 要比较的版本代码数组 (默认: 所有版本)
示例：
{
"book": "John",
"chapter": 3,
"verse": 16,
"versions": ["GAE", "NIR", "KOR"]
}GAE: 개역개정 (修订版韩文标准译本)
GAE1: 개역한글 (韩文修订版)
NIR: 새번역성경 (新韩文修订版)
KOR: 공동번역 (共同译本)
CEV: CEV (当代英语译本)
Genesis (창세기): gen
Exodus (출애굽기): exo
Leviticus (레위기): lev
Numbers (민수기): num
Deuteronomy (신명기): deu
... (查看源代码中的完整列表)
Matthew (마태복음): mat
Mark (마가복음): mrk
Luke (누가복음): luk
John (요한복음): jhn
Acts (사도행전): act
... (查看源代码中的完整列表)
添加到您的 Claude Desktop 配置中：
编辑 ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json：
{
"mcpServers": {
"bible-ko": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"bible-ko-mcp"
]
}
}
}使用上述相同配置编辑 %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json。
添加配置后，请完全重启 Claude Desktop。
本地开发：
# 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 start测试本地更改时，请使用此配置：
{
"mcpServers": {
"bible-ko": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/bible-ko-mcp/build/index.js"
]
}
}
}请记住在进行更改后运行 npm run build。
使用 TypeScript 和 MCP SDK 构建
使用 cheerio 进行 HTML 解析
从 bskorea.or.kr 获取数据，并在瞬时故障时自动重试（指数退避）
内存缓存（30 分钟 TTL，2000 条目）避免冗余请求
支持全部 66 卷圣经
处理韩文和英文书名
每周日关于八福的讲道
询问 Claude: "请给我马太福音 5:3-12 的韩文 (GAE) 版本，并将每一条福分单独列行，以便我准备讲道大纲。"
Tool: get-verses
Book: Matthew, Chapter: 5, Start: 3, End: 12受难日 — 以赛亚书中的弥赛亚预言
Tool: get-chapter
Book: Isaiah, Chapter: 53, Version: GAE平安夜讲道 — 降生叙事
Tool: get-verses
Book: Luke, Chapter: 2, Start: 1, End: 20复活节主日 — 复活记载
Tool: get-chapter
Book: John, Chapter: 20, Version: GAE婚礼证道 — 爱之篇章
Tool: get-chapter
Book: 1 Corinthians, Chapter: 13, Version: GAE宣教主日 — 大使命
Tool: get-verses
Book: Matthew, Chapter: 28, Start: 18, End: 20比较约翰福音 3:16 的不同译本以进行小组讨论
Tool: compare-translations
Book: John, Chapter: 3, Verse: 16
Versions: ["GAE", "GAE1", "NIR", "KOR"]专题研究：活泼的信心 (야고보서의 믿음)
Tool: get-verses
Book: James, Chapter: 2, Start: 14, End: 26圣灵果子研究
Tool: get-verses
Book: Galatians, Chapter: 5, Start: 22, End: 23希伯来书 11 章“信心伟人榜” — 完整章节
Tool: get-chapter
Book: Hebrews, Chapter: 11, Version: GAE属灵争战 — 全副军装经文
Tool: get-verses
Book: Ephesians, Chapter: 6, Start: 10, End: 18诗篇 23 篇以获得安慰（葬礼信息、探访病人）
Tool: get-chapter
Book: Psalms, Chapter: 23, Version: GAE罗马书 8:28-39 — 神爱的确据
Tool: get-verses
Book: Romans, Chapter: 8, Start: 28, End: 39每日经文背诵
Tool: get-verses
Book: Philippians, Chapter: 4, Start: 13, End: 13将临期灵修 — 道成了肉身
Tool: get-verses
Book: John, Chapter: 1, Start: 1, End: 14所有工具都接受韩文书名，使得引用韩文圣经变得非常自然：
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)HTML 解析可能需要根据网站更新进行调整
搜索功能为演示目的进行了限制，以避免过多的请求
某些译本可能并非所有书卷都可用
当创建新的 GitHub 发布时，此包会自动发布到 NPM。详细说明请参阅 PUBLISHING.md。
欢迎贡献！请随时提交 Pull Request。
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.
