Word Frequency Analyzer — Analyse word frequency distribution in a text or document file. [category: analyze]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | Text or document file | |
| text | No | Direct text input. Provide either file or text. | |
| topN | No | Show this many of the most common words, most frequent first. | |
| exclude | No | Comma-separated, e.g. the, and, of. Capitals and spacing do not matter. Words under two letters are always ignored. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / text / x-ui / multilineAdded value: +trueInput schema / properties / exclude / x-uiAdded value: +{
+ "unset_label": "No extra words left out"
+}Input schema / properties / text / x-uiAdded value: +{
+ "unset_label": "Uses the attached file instead"
+}Input schema / x-require-one-ofAdded value: +[
+ [
+ "file"
+ ],
+ [
+ "text"
+ ]
+]Input schema / properties / exclude / descriptionPrevious value: -"Comma-separated words to exclude from the count."New value: +"Comma-separated, e.g. the, and, of. Capitals and spacing do not matter. Words under two letters are always ignored."Input schema / properties / exclude / titleAdded value: +"Words to ignore"Input schema / properties / topN / descriptionPrevious value: -"How many top words to return."New value: +"Show this many of the most common words, most frequent first."Input schema / properties / topN / titleAdded value: +"How many words to show"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Analyse' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as what happens with large files, performance characteristics, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a category tag. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise while still conveying the essential function.
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 has no output schema, and the description fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list, JSON, or other format). It also omits any mention of edge cases or how the mutually exclusive file/text parameters are handled beyond what the schema implies. For an agent to call this tool confidently, it would need to know the output structure, which is absent.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (file, text, topN, exclude) already explained in the schema. The tool description itself does not mention any parameters or add semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 the verb 'Analyse' and the resource 'word frequency distribution in a text or document file', making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool analyze_word_count, but the name and phrasing are specific enough that an agent can infer the core function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_word_count or other analyze_* tools. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests conditions for choosing this tool. The schema's x-require-one-of constraint is structural, not usage guidance.
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.