get_word_listThe full list: every word, its groups (for example -at, -an, -ap families), the grade range, the placement basis, the page URL and the license. Use an id from list_word_lists, e.g. short-a, kindergarten, sh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | List id, e.g. short-a, kindergarten, vowel-teams, or es:palabras-con-m |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the returned fields, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, id validation, or pagination.
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 with no waste: the first front-loads the return fields, and the second provides usage guidance. Every part of the description earns its place.
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?
Given a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of enumerating what is returned (words, groups, grade range, placement basis, URL, license) and where to get the id. It could mention the response format or error behavior, but it is largely complete.
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% and the id parameter is well documented with examples. The description adds the source of the id (list_word_lists), which is a small but useful addition beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states that it returns a full word list with specific fields, and it distinguishes itself from list_word_lists by requiring an id from that tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from other siblings like find_words or get_words_for_grade.
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?
It provides a prerequisite (use an id from list_word_lists) and gives examples, which implies when to use it. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as find_words or get_words_for_grade, and offers no exclusions.
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.