kasahorow
Server Details
Bilingual dictionary lookup and translation validation for kasahorow Fellows.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: lookup_word is a dictionary lookup, while validate_translation is a paid validation service. No overlap in functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: lookup_word and validate_translation.
Only 2 tools is on the low side for a dictionary/translation service, but it may be acceptable for a niche purpose. Slightly more tools would improve coverage.
The server lacks basic features like listing supported languages, translating text, or adding words. The paid validation tool is an outlier, leaving significant gaps in a typical dictionary workflow.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_wordAInspect
Look up a word in the kasahorow dictionary (WOAKA). fl = your language, tl = the language of the word. Returns definitions with parts of speech.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fl | Yes | Your language, ISO code (e.g. 'en'). | |
| tl | Yes | The word's language, ISO code (e.g. 'ak', 'sw'). | |
| word | Yes | The word or short phrase to look up. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool is read-only and returns 'definitions with parts of speech'. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose potential error cases or idempotency guarantees.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is brief and every phrase adds meaning, though it could be slightly expanded with usage guidance without losing conciseness.
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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return value. All three required parameters are covered, and the sibling tool is mentioned. It does not specify error handling or language availability, but for a straightforward lookup, the description is sufficient.
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?
The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly defining 'fl' as 'your language' and 'tl' as 'the word's language', clarifying the directionality of the lookup. The schema already provides ISO code examples, but the description resolves ambiguity.
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 tool's purpose: looking up a word in the kasahorow dictionary. It specifies the dictionary name (WOAKA) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'validate_translation' by focusing on lookup rather than validation.
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. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites for using the dictionary (e.g., language availability or internet connection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_translationAInspect
Validate a translation with nabanya, the Connection Validator: it confirms your words transmit their feelings in the reader's language. It never rewrites your words. This is a PAID reading ($15): the reply gives you the payment link and your report link. When the payment clears, the Connection Report is prepared and sent to your report link and email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reader | Yes | The reader's language, ISO code (e.g. 'sw'). | |
| source | Yes | Your original writing. | |
| writer | Yes | The writer's language, ISO code (e.g. 'en'). | |
| translation | Yes | The translation to validate. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it is a paid reading ($15), does not rewrite words, and returns payment and report links asynchronously after payment clears. This is helpful but lacks details on error handling or report contents.
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 three sentences long and conveys the essential information. It could be more concise by avoiding repetition of 'payment link' and 'report link', but overall it is efficient.
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 the tool's complexity (paid, asynchronous, no output schema), the description covers the main process: validation, payment initiation, and delivery of results. It lacks details on report content and duration but is adequate for basic understanding.
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 clear but minimal per-parameter descriptions. The tool's description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 tool validates a translation using 'nabanya' and confirms it transmits feelings in the reader's language. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lookup_word' by focusing on validation rather than word lookup.
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 implies the tool is for translation validation via a paid service but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'lookup_word' or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!