get_glossaryWhat every Kunkafa term and number means and how to read them. Call once before explaining results. No sign-in needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| glossary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "What every term in Kunkafa replies means and how to read them. Public, static, English.",
+ "properties": {
+ "glossary": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "terms": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "fields": {
+ "description": "Reply fields the term explains.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "meaning": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "term": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "term",
+ "meaning"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "title",
+ "terms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "glossary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-structured behavior: no authentication is required, and the call is a one-time lookup (implying the content is static/cacheable). That is genuine added context beyond the annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, followed by the when and the auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it correctly covers purpose, timing and auth. For a zero-param reference tool this is essentially complete, with only marginal room to say anything more.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Nothing in the description could add parameter meaning, and none is needed.
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 states that the tool returns the meaning of Kunkafa terms and numbers plus how to read them, which is a specific resource and clearly not one of the data-retrieval siblings (get_performance, get_results, etc.). It stops short of literally naming it a glossary lookup, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
"Call once before explaining results" gives an explicit trigger and a usage cadence, which is exactly the context an agent needs to decide when to invoke it. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling overlaps this reference-lookup function, so no exclusion is required.
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.