Skip to main content
Glama

Conjugate a word

conjugate

The inflection table of one English or Japanese word, grouped by form in the order a textbook table shows them: for Japanese the polite, て, past, negative and other forms, for English the third person, past, participle or plural. Each form carries its name in the word's language with English and Japanese translations, and one row per surface with the text, the polarity (positive or negative) and tone (plain or polite) on Japanese rows, the homograph it belongs to, the part of speech and the kana reading. The pitch accent and the MP3 are the headword's, on the pronunciations lookup_word answers, not each row's. Call it to say how a word is conjugated or inflected, the polite past of 帰る for example, rather than inflecting it yourself. headword resolves as lookup_word's text does. A word with no inflections, a Japanese noun or a particle, answers an empty forms list, not an error.

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": {
      "lang": "<lang>",
      "headword": "<headword>"
    },
    "name": "conjugate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langYesThe language of the word: eng for English, jpn for Japanese
headwordYesThe word in its dictionary form, or an alternative spelling of it

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
langYes
formsYesOne group per form in form_sequence order; empty for an entry with no inflection rows, such as a noun or a particle
headwordYesThe canonical headword the lookup resolved to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the grouping order, per-row fields, that pitch accent and MP3 belong to the headword rather than each row, and that empty inflection lists are a normal outcome rather than an error.

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 dense but every sentence contributes relevant information about output structure, usage, and edge cases. It is somewhat run-on and would be easier to scan if split into shorter sections, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the output shape, language behavior, headword resolution, and the empty-forms edge case, while an output schema also exists to support return-value details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter definitions already explain lang and headword. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by stating that headword resolves as it does in lookup_word and by clarifying the language-specific scope of the result.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the inflection table of one English or Japanese word, grouped by form. It clearly distinguishes this from dictionary lookup by framing the tool as answering how a word is conjugated or inflected, and it names lookup_word as the reference for headword resolution.

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 gives clear usage guidance: call it to say how a word is conjugated or inflected rather than inflecting the word yourself. It also explains the edge case that a word with no inflections returns an empty forms list rather than an error. It does not fully enumerate when to prefer siblings such as search_words, but the intended context is clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources