Dengdeng Chinese Dictionary

Search the Chinese dictionary

search_dictionary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Dengdeng Chinese–English dictionary by pinyin (with or without tone marks, for example “xuexi” or “xué xí”), by English meaning (for example “library”), or by Chinese characters. Returns up to 10 matching words with pinyin, a short meaning, the HSK 3.0 band and the URL of each word page, plus the URL of the full results. Use look_up_word afterwards for the full entry of one result.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_dictionary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	Limit the search to one field: pinyin, simplified, traditional or english. Use all (the default) when unsure.	all
`query`	Yes	Pinyin, English or Chinese characters, up to 100 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description focuses on useful extras: a hard cap of 10 results per query and the exact fields returned (pinyin, short meaning, HSK 3.0 band, word-page URL) plus a full-results URL. The only gap is that it does not say how matching behaves (exact vs prefix/partial), which matters for a search tool.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first defines accepted inputs, the second defines the return shape and the follow-up tool. Nothing repeats the title or annotations, and the highest-value facts come first.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and the result cap, and for a two-parameter read-only tool that is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the response. The sibling handoff closes the loop on the search-then-lookup workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 3 would be the baseline, but the description genuinely adds meaning by giving concrete accepted inputs for the query string ("xuexi" vs "xué xí", "library", Chinese characters), clarifying tone-mark tolerance that the schema does not state. The mode parameter is left to the schema's own enum descriptions, which are adequate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search the Dengdeng Chinese–English dictionary") and enumerates the three searchable keys (pinyin with or without tone marks, English meaning, Chinese characters). It also distinguishes itself from look_up_word by positioning that tool as the drill-down step after a search.

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?

It states clearly when to follow up with look_up_word ("for the full entry of one result"), which is the key routing decision among the siblings. It does not explicitly describe when this tool should be skipped in favor of hsk_word_list or get_embed_code, but the search-vs-detail split is unambiguous.

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

All Dengdeng Chinese Dictionary tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?