JW Research MCP

get_related_content

Creates a linked research trail from a Watchtower Online Library article, including exact subheading anchors and related content recommendations.

Instructions

Build a linked research trail from a WOL article, including exact subheading anchors and WOL similar-material recommendations.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_related_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	A https://wol.jw.org article URL
`format`	No		json
`langwritten`	No	JW language code. Defaults to DEFAULT_LANGUAGE or E.	E

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only status, auth requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response structure beyond vague 'linked research trail'.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient, though the second clause is a fragment. No extraneous details.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits output structure, error states, and usage patterns. The 'research trail' concept is vague without further detail, especially given sibling tool complexity.

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 description coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters (e.g., no explanation of 'format' choices or 'langwritten' usage). It focuses on output rather than parameter semantics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool builds a 'linked research trail' from a WOL article, specifying outputs include subheading anchors and similar-material recommendations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cross_references or search_wol_library that may also return related content.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_article_full for full text, search_wol_library for broader searches). The description lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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