Printablesmith

Spelling worksheet

make_spelling_worksheet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Make a printable spelling worksheet from a week’s spelling words (up to 20). Activities: copy (write each word three times), test (numbered lines for a spelling test), abc_order, word_shapes (letter boxes), sentences, look_say_cover_write_check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "words": "<words>"
    },
    "name": "make_spelling_worksheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No	Which random version to make. Leave out for a fresh one; pass the seed from an earlier result to keep that version while changing other settings.
`large`	No	Bigger writing space for young children and beginning readers (for older eyes, use large_print).
`lines`	No	guide: handwriting lines with a dotted middle; plain: single lines.
`paper`	No	Paper size: letter (US Letter, the default; US and Canada) or a4 (everywhere else).
`title`	No	The title printed at the top of the sheet, e.g. "Week 5 Spelling". Keep it short.
`words`	Yes	The spelling words, one per entry (1 to 20). Use plain, familiar words suited to the reader, e.g. "cake", "rain", "play".
`activity`	No	Which activity.
`date_line`	No	A line for the date.
`name_line`	No	A line for the child’s name.
`answer_key`	No	An answer key, where the activity has answers.
`decoration`	No	A themed border with matching pictures, drawn around the sheet: "line" for a plain border, "none" for nothing, or a theme such as halloween, christmas, thanksgiving, spring, dinosaurs, space, ocean, animals, birthday, back-to-school (95 themes; find_printables shows a theme’s name). Leave out for no border.
`letter_case`	No	Words as typed, or all in upper case.
`dyslexia_font`	No	Print in OpenDyslexic, a typeface some readers with dyslexia find easier.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The sheet on printablesmith.com, every setting filled in: open it to adjust, download the PDF or print
`seed`	No	The seed that rebuilds this exact sheet
`maker`	Yes	Which maker drew it, e.g. wordSearch
`notes`	Yes	Things worth knowing about this sheet
`title`	Yes	The sheet title
`playUrl`	No	Where a child can solve it on a screen (word search, crossword, maze, sudoku)
`summary`	Yes	What the sheet is
`settings`	Yes	The address settings, as the maker reads them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description earns credit for disclosing output behavior beyond the annotations — that "copy" means writing each word three times, "test" produces numbered lines, and "word_shapes" uses letter boxes — which tells the agent what the generated artifact actually looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact clauses: the purpose and scope come first, followed by a tight colon-separated activity enumeration. Every token carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 13-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and complete annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot — what each activity produces. Minor gaps remain (no mention of defaults like US Letter paper or the 95-theme decoration option), but those live in the schema and an agent can still call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor; the description goes beyond it by expanding the activity enum values into human-readable meanings (copy = three repetitions, test = numbered lines, word_shapes = letter boxes), information the schema only labels as "Which activity." It does not add anything for the other parameters (seed, decoration, paper, lines), but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and artifact ("Make a printable spelling worksheet"), states the input source ("a week's spelling words") and a hard limit ("up to 20"), then enumerates the six supported activities. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from make_math_worksheet, make_word_search, make_tracing_worksheet and the other maker siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase "from a week's spelling words" gives clear situational context (weekly spelling practice / classroom handout), and the activity list implies which variant to pick. It stops short of explicit routing — it never says when to prefer make_word_search or make_tracing_worksheet instead, and gives no exclusions, which is why it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All Printablesmith tools Inspect

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

Need Help?