JW Research MCP

get_jw_captions

Fetch video captions from JW.org using a video ID or URL. The tool automatically extracts the video ID from URLs, simplifying caption retrieval.

Instructions

Fetches video captions from JW.org by video ID or URL. Accepts either a direct video ID (e.g., "pub-jwbvod25_17_VIDEO") or a JW.org URL (e.g., "https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-jwbvod25_17_VIDEO")

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": {
      "video_id": "<video_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_jw_captions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`video_id`	Yes	The JW.org video ID or a JW.org URL containing the video ID. If a URL is provided, the video ID will be automatically extracted.
`langwritten`	No	JW language code	E

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose output format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Only input handling is described, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by input clarification with examples. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple tool and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains inputs well but omits what the captions contain or how they are returned. The langwritten parameter is not described.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples but does not provide new information beyond the schema property descriptions. The langwritten parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 fetches video captions from JW.org, specifying the resource and source. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are primarily for publications, Bible, and library content, not captions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states what inputs are accepted (ID or URL) with examples, making usage clear. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the tool's specificity reduces need for such guidance.

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