Count syllables in a word or text. Pure CPU, instant.
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": {
"text": "<text>"
},
"name": "count_syllables"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to count |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Text to count",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "text"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Pure CPU, instant' usefully signals no network calls, no rate limits, and low latency, but it says nothing about determinism, how multi-word input is aggregated (per-word sum vs. total), or what the response looks like.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a performance note. No wasted wording, though the second sentence borders on promotional rather than informational.
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?
For a single-parameter, schema-fully-documented utility with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The only real gap is the shape of the result (a number, or per-word breakdown) and behavior on multi-word input.
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 a single required 'text' string, so the schema already does the documentation work. The phrase 'a word or text' adds a small hint that the parameter accepts both short and long input, but nothing about how multiple words are handled.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Count syllables in a word or text.' An agent immediately knows the operation and the input domain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors in the sibling list such as word_count or analyze_readability.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer on its own whether to reach for this or analyze_readability/word_count for related text metrics.
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.