slavonic
Server Details
Grounds LLMs in real Church Slavonic: Wiktionary lemmas, dual-number paradigms, transliteration.
- 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 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: lookup/search for a word, fetch inflection tables for a specific lemma, and transliterate text. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names are prefixed with 'slavonic_' and use lowercase with underscores. The verbs are descriptive, though 'search' lacks a noun object while 'get_inflections' includes one, but the pattern is still predictable and readable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a specialized linguistic dictionary server covering search, detailed inflection retrieval, and transliteration. Each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the main user needs: searching for words, retrieving inflection tables, and transliterating. A minor gap is the lack of a lemma listing or etymology tool, but for a focused server this is acceptable.
Available Tools
4 toolsslavonic_detransliterateFind the Church Slavonic word(s) matching a Latin transliterationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find the real Church Slavonic word(s) whose scientific-Latin transliteration
matches this input — the inverse direction of slavonic_transliterate. Because
transliterate is lossy, this is a LOOKUP against the words already in the
dictionary cache: attested spellings (normalized OCS Cyrillic) come back as
source=dictionary. If none match, a single best-effort reconstruction is returned
(source=reconstruction, approximate=true) — a guess in normalized OCS Cyrillic, not
attested, with no Glagolitic or liturgical marks. Coverage grows as words are
cached, so an identical query may return a reconstruction now and a dictionary hit
later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Scientific-Latin transliteration of Church Slavonic to resolve back to real orthography. Returns the attested dictionary spelling(s) whose transliteration matches (source=dictionary, exact) — several may match one ambiguous key. On a miss, a single best-effort reconstruction in normalized OCS Cyrillic (source=reconstruction, approximate=true), which is a guess: transliterate is lossy, so case, digraph boundaries (д+з vs ѕ) and the оу/ѿ ligatures cannot be recovered, and no Glagolitic or liturgical marks are produced. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| candidates | Yes | |
| approximate | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are already provided. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the lookup is against a dictionary cache, transliterate is lossy, returns source=dictionary or source=reconstruction with approximate flag, coverage grows over time, and no Glagolitic or liturgical marks are produced. No contradiction with 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?
The description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering fallback, caching, and limitations. No wasted words.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, high schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the lookup, fallback, caching dynamics, and limitations, enabling correct use by an agent.
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 input schema describes the 'text' parameter fully with maxLength, minLength, and behavior. The tool description adds context about inverse direction and caching, but these are more about overall behavior than parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the extra value is marginal.
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: finding Church Slavonic words from a Latin transliteration, the inverse of slavonic_transliterate. It specifies the verb 'find' and the resource (Church Slavonic words), and distinguishes it from its sibling by naming the inverse operation.
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 explains when to use the tool (when you have a transliteration) and that it's the inverse of slavonic_transliterate. It details fallback behavior (reconstruction) and caching, but does not explicitly state scenarios where it should not be used, though the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
slavonic_get_inflectionsGet a Church Slavonic inflection tableARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch the full declension (nominals) or conjugation (verbs) table for a lemma identified by a search result's inflection handle (entry_id + word_class). Use this only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded — a default search already returns each match's table inline. Returns Markdown plus the table as structuredContent with the shape {"result": } per the declared outputSchema — switch on result.category ('nominal' | 'verbal' | 'not_found') before reading the body. Content from en.wiktionary.org (CC BY-SA 4.0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | The Wiktionary page title (the Cyrillic lemma) from a search result's inflection handle, e.g. 'богъ', 'глаголати'. | |
| word_class | Yes | The part-of-speech section from a search result's inflection handle, e.g. 'verb', 'noun', 'adjective'. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it's read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns Markdown plus structuredContent with a specific shape, and instructs to check result.category ('nominal' | 'verbal' | 'not_found'). It also mentions the data source (en.wiktionary.org, CC BY-SA 4.0). No contradictions with 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?
The description is four sentences long, each serving a purpose: main action, usage condition, return format, and source attributions. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.
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 existence of an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, return structure (Markdown + structuredContent with result.category), and the category values. It lacks explicit error handling beyond 'not_found', but the output schema likely provides that. Overall, it's nearly complete.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces that 'entry_id' and 'word_class' come from a search result's inflection handle, providing examples (e.g., 'богъ', 'verb'). This adds context beyond the schema, so a score of 4 is warranted.
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 it fetches declension/conjugation tables for a lemma identified by a search result's inflection handle. It uses specific verbs like 'Fetch' and specifies the resource (inflection table). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining when to use this tool versus the default search behavior.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded, noting that a default search already returns tables inline. It also advises to switch on result.category before reading the body. No alternative tools are explicitly named, but the context with siblings is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
slavonic_searchLook a Church Slavonic word upARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look an Old Church Slavonic word up on Wiktionary and return its senses plus full declension/conjugation tables — attested content (singular, dual and plural), not invented. Any form of the word works; an inflected query is resolved to its lemma automatically via previously cached paradigms and the result notes the resolution. With search_language='eng' the query is an English word instead: the result lists its per-sense Old Church Slavonic equivalents (the translations block) plus their expanded entries. Returns Markdown plus the same result as structuredContent matching the declared outputSchema.
Results are cached server-side; first-time queries reach the live upstream politely and calls are rate limited — on a rate-limit error, wait a few seconds and retry. Content is from en.wiktionary.org (CC BY-SA 4.0 — attribute and share alike if republished).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The word to look up, in the language search_language names. Church Slavonic (default): a SINGLE Old Church Slavonic word in Cyrillic, any form — an inflected form ('бога') is resolved to its lemma ('богъ') automatically via cached paradigms, and the result says so; normalized OCS spelling works best, but titlos/accents and modern-Cyrillic respellings (ы for ꙑ) are folded. English (search_language='eng'): the English word whose Old Church Slavonic equivalents you want — multiword entries like 'apple tree' work. | |
| max_forms | No | Optional override for how many inflection tables to expand this call (0–12). On an uncached query each table is one politely paced upstream fetch, so high values on cold queries are slow. Omit for the server default. | |
| include_forms | No | When true (default), each match's full declension/conjugation table is returned INLINE — usable cases/tenses (singular, dual AND plural) in ONE call, no follow-up slavonic_get_inflections. Set false for a cheap screen of which entries exist. Bounded by a per-search cap — use max_forms to adjust per call. For eng queries this governs the expanded OCS entries; the per-sense translations list itself is always returned. | |
| search_language | No | Language the query word is in: 'chu' (default) looks the Old Church Slavonic word up directly; 'eng' finds the OCS equivalents of an English word (per-sense, from Wiktionary's translation tables) and returns their full entries. Glosses are in English either way. | chu |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| found | Yes | False when nothing matched. For an eng query, True means Old Church Slavonic translations were found — entries may still be empty when none of them could be expanded (see translations). |
| query | Yes | |
| source | No | |
| entries | No | |
| handles | No | |
| language | Yes | |
| translations | No | Populated only for eng queries (always [] for chu): the OCS terms each English sense translates to, in sense order. Entries/handles below are the expanded dictionary entries of those terms. |
| resolved_from | No | The original inflected query when resolved; else empty. chu queries only — always empty for eng results. |
| search_method | No | How the match was found: 'direct' = the query itself matched; 'lemma_index' = an inflected form resolved via a previously cached paradigm; 'translations' = an English query resolved via Wiktionary translation tables. |
| resolved_lemma | No | The lemma actually searched when resolved; else empty. chu queries only — always empty for eng results. |
| forms_truncated | No | How many handles did NOT get an inline table because the per-search cap was reached. |
| translations_truncated | No | How many distinct translated lemmas were NOT expanded into entries because the per-search expansion cap was reached (they still appear under translations). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral details: results are cached, first-time queries are politely paced, rate limits trigger a retry suggestion, and output includes both Markdown and structuredContent matching the outputSchema. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with the main action first, followed by key behaviors and parameter nuances. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value; no redundant phrasing.
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 (two search modes, inflection tables, caching, rate limits, dual output formats), the description covers all essential aspects. Output schema exists so return values are clear, and sibling tools are implicitly addressed.
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%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds context: e.g., query explains inflected form resolution, max_forms explains performance trade-offs, include_forms explains when to skip inflections. This enriches understanding without contradicting the schema.
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: look up Old Church Slavonic words on Wiktionary, return senses and full declension/conjugation tables, including reverse English lookup. It distinguishes from sibling tools like slavonic_get_inflections and slavonic_transliterate by noting that inflections are included and that transliteration is separate.
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 explains when to use the tool (direct OCS lookup or English-to-OCS reverse lookup) and provides guidance on parameters like include_forms and max_forms to control behavior. It mentions caching and rate limiting, but could be more explicit about when to use sibling tools instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
slavonic_transliterateTransliterate Church Slavonic to scientific LatinARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Render Church Slavonic — Cyrillic or Glagolitic — in the scientific Latin transliteration Wiktionary uses (богъ → bogŭ, ⰱⱁⰳⱏ → bogŭ). Liturgical reading marks (titlos, accents) are dropped and late Church Slavonic spellings folded, so copied liturgical text works as-is. Returns Markdown plus the transliterated output as structuredContent matching the declared outputSchema. Pure local transform: no dictionary lookup and no network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Church Slavonic text to transliterate — Cyrillic and/or Glagolitic, one word or whole lines. Liturgical reading marks (titlos, accents, breathings) are dropped and late Church Slavonic spellings folded, so text copied from a liturgical source or a lyrics sheet works as-is. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The scientific transliteration. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, confirming safety. The description adds behavioral details: drops liturgical marks, folds late spellings, no dictionary lookup, no network, returns Markdown plus structuredContent. This goes beyond annotations and fully discloses the tool's behavior.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides examples, details on behavior, output format, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is concise and well-organized, fitting the tool's simplicity.
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 single required parameter, clear annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input expectations, transformations applied, output format, and safety. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about the 'text' parameter: it can be Cyrillic or Glagolitic, one word or whole lines, and that marks/spellings are handled, making copied text work as-is. This adds nuance beyond the schema's description.
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 verb ('Render') and the resource ('Church Slavonic — Cyrillic or Glagolitic') with the specific target ('scientific Latin transliteration Wiktionary uses'). The examples (богъ → bogŭ) and mention of the standard make the purpose unambiguous. It also contrasts with sibling tools (slavonic_get_inflections and slavonic_search) by being about transliteration, not inflection or search.
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 indicates when to use the tool: for transliterating Church Slavonic text that may include liturgical marks and late spellings, as it handles those. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly for different tasks. The guideline is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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!