The verses around a reference, in canonical order — the linear axis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| translation | No | BSB |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds 'canonical order' and 'linear axis' as behavioral context, but it does not address boundary behavior, defaults for before/after, translation handling, or what happens at the start/end of a book. The agent is left inferring most behavior.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the essential concept and expresses it without fluff. It is reasonably scannable, though slightly cryptic in phrasing.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, so a richer description is needed. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return shape, but the description still fails to convey parameter semantics, sibling distinctions, or edge behavior. It is minimally viable but 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the before, after, reference, or translation parameters. The phrase 'around a reference' gives a weak conceptual clue about reference and before/after, but it adds no operational meaning or value constraints. With 4 undocumented parameters, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 states the core purpose: returning verses around a reference. It also adds the key distinguishing trait of 'canonical order / linear axis,' which separates it from a simple verse lookup. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings like get_verse or search_verses by name.
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 through 'verses around a reference,' but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_verse or search_verses. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual cues beyond the basic definition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The verse operations are mostly distinct: get_verse/search_verses/get_context cover reading, while get_connection/get_connections/find_path cover graph queries at increasing scope. However, get_connection and get_connections differ only by pluralization, and find_path could be mistaken for get_connection without careful reading.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (find_path, get_verse, list_tasks, search_verses). The verbs get/list/find/search are semantically appropriate, and singular/plural pairs are intuitive.
At 8 tools, the set is compact for a domain spanning both verse lookup and task discovery. Every tool addresses a distinct need, and none are redundant.
The verse/correlation surface is well covered: single verse, context, search, direct connections, full paths, and per-connection details. The task side only supports listing and fetching tasks, leaving no visible way to submit or update work, which is a minor workflow gap.