expand_termWhat is this word, upward? Walks the WordNet is-a (hypernym) chain meaning to parent meaning, from the word's KSA-mapped sense toward its broader categories, so every step stays in the sense it started in. Each step carries its definition (gloss) and synonyms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | A word to see what broader kind of thing it is, e.g. carpentry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / term / descriptionPrevious value: -"The word to expand upward, e.g. carpentry"New value: +"A word to see what broader kind of thing it is, e.g. carpentry"Input schema / properties / term / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "carpentry",
+ "nursing"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: the traversal direction (upward, parent meaning), a strong guarantee that 'every step stays in the sense it started in', and disclosure of what each step returns (gloss plus synonyms). It lacks termination/error details (e.g., what happens when no KSA-mapped sense exists), so it is not a full 5.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the following sentences each add distinct information (traversal mechanics, sense stability, step payload). The rhetorical opener 'What is this word, upward?' is slightly gimmicky but still earns its place as a directional cue.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the per-step payload (gloss and synonyms). Combined with the direction and sense-stability behavior, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though edge-case handling for unresolvable or unmapped terms is unaddressed.
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% for the single term parameter, so the schema already carries the field meaning. The description adds a marginal grain of semantics by noting the term is anchored to a KSA-mapped sense, but gives no format, casing, or sense-selection guidance beyond that, so the 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 names a specific verb (walks the is-a/hypernym chain) and the resource it operates on (the word's KSA-mapped sense), so an agent knows this moves from a term toward its broader categories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling resolve_term, which is the most likely source of confusion, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers you call this when you want broader categories for a word. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no naming of the alternative (resolve_term) that an agent would weigh against this tool.
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.