Skip to main content
Glama

kasahorow

by com.kasahorow
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Bilingual dictionary lookup and translation validation for kasahorow Fellows.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Uptime
99.9% over 43 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

lookup_word and validate_translation have clearly distinct purposes: one is a dictionary lookup, the other is a paid validation/report service. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent choosing between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: lookup_word and validate_translation. This is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is on the low end for a language/dictionary server, making the set feel thin. However, the two tools are distinct services, so the count is not unreasonable for a minimal offering.

Completeness2/5

The dictionary lookup lacks supporting operations such as listing supported languages, retrieving language metadata, or handling spelling variants. The validate_translation service is also an opaque paid report rather than a concrete translation or validation workflow, leaving significant gaps for agents trying to use the server end-to-end.

Available Tools

2 tools
lookup_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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flYesYour language, ISO code (e.g. 'en').
tlYesThe word's language, ISO code (e.g. 'ak', 'sw').
wordYesThe word or short phrase to look up.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 (N1 $15, N2 $10, N3 $5, N4 $3): the reply gives you the payment link and your report link. When the payment clears, the reading is prepared and sent to your report link and email.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
readerYesThe reader's language, ISO code (e.g. 'sw').
sourceYesYour original writing. For N4, the single word instead.
writerYesThe writer's language, ISO code (e.g. 'en').
productNoWhich reading. N1 ($15) validates a finished pair and needs a translation. N4 ($3) validates ONE word: put the word in `source` and leave `translation` empty. Defaults to N1.
translationNoThe translation to validate. N1 only.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid nature, exact dollar amounts per tier, the asynchronous process (payment link first, then report link/email after payment clears), and the explicit behavior 'It never rewrites your words.' It could add details about auth or failure states, but for a paid validation service this is substantial transparency.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then gives essential pricing and workflow details in a few sentences. It earns its space, though phrases like 'nabanya, the Connection Validator' and 'transmit their feelings' add slight branding wordiness without harming clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers important context: what it does, what it never does, the cost, and what the user will receive (payment link, report link, email). It lacks failure-payment or error-handling details, but for an agent deciding whether to invoke it and setting user expectations, it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds pricing context for the 'product' parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., N4 uses source and leaves translation empty, N1 needs translation). The schema itself already explains these parameter relationships, so the description contributes little extra semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a translation' and names the validator 'nabanya'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from a rewrite tool by stating 'It never rewrites your words,' which separates it from related functions like lookup_word or rewriting services.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description communicates context such as being a PAID reading, the N1-N4 tier pricing, and the payment/report-link flow. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., lookup_word) beyond implying 'validate a translation', and it provides no clear exclusions other than 'never rewrites your words,' which is more behavioral than a usage directive.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Changedvalidate_translation4 fields changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / product
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which reading. N1 ($15) validates a finished pair and needs a translation. N4 ($3) validates ONE word: put the word in `source` and leave `translation` empty. Defaults to N1.",
+  "enum": [
+    "N1",
+    "N2",
+    "N3",
+    "N4"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
      • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
        Previous value: -"Your original writing."New value: +"Your original writing. For N4, the single word instead."
      • changedInput schema / properties / translation / description
        Previous value: -"The translation to validate."New value: +"The translation to validate. N1 only."
      • changedInput schema / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "source",
-  "translation",
-  "writer",
-  "reader"
-]New value: +[
+  "source",
+  "writer",
+  "reader"
+]
  2. 2 tool updates
    • First observedlookup_word
    • First observedvalidate_translation

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources