get_textFetch a passage of Jewish text from Sefaria by reference, in Hebrew and/or English. Works for Torah/Tanakh, Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halacha, Kabbalah, and commentaries. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Textual reference, e.g. "Genesis.1.1", "Genesis.1.1-5", "Psalms.23", "Shabbat.2a", "Mishnah_Berakhot.1.1". | |
| language | No | Which translation(s) to return: "en", "he", or "both" (default "both"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "ref": "Genesis.1.1"
+ },
+ {
+ "language": "he",
+ "ref": "Shabbat.2a"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds useful context: 'Keyless' (no auth required) and the scope of supported texts, which goes beyond 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?
Two sentences that are dense with information: specifies action, resource, scope, and keyless access. No unnecessary 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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description adequately covers purpose, supported text types, and language options. It doesn't detail return format, but it's acceptable for a straightforward fetch tool.
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% with examples and descriptions for both 'ref' and 'language'. The description mentions 'in Hebrew and/or English' which aligns with the language parameter, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('passage of Jewish text from Sefaria by reference'), lists supported text types ('Torah/Tanakh, Talmud...'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_commentaries' which has a different purpose.
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 states it works for a wide range of Jewish texts and mentions 'Keyless', implying no authentication needed. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, but the context is clear for typical use.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). The Sefaria-specific tools are few, making it hard to distinguish between the core functionality and auxiliary utilities.
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_text), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are standalone names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). This mix of patterns makes the set appear haphazard.
With 33 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially given the name 'Sefaria' which implies a focused set for Jewish text access. The vast majority of tools are unrelated to Sefaria, belonging to the Pipeworx ecosystem, making the count inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.
For a server named Sefaria, the tool surface is severely incomplete. Only three tools (get_text, get_commentaries, lookup_ref) directly relate to Jewish texts, missing fundamental operations like search, list books, or manage content. The remaining 30 tools belong to other domains, leaving the core domain under-served.