Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

WordsDesk

by com.wordsdesk
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Make a word search

make_word_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Makes a word search from words the user supplies, 3 to 40 words of 3 to 15 letters. Gives the letter grid, where each word is placed, the words that did not fit with the reason, and a link that opens the WordsDesk maker with the same words to print, save a PDF or share. The widget is playable.

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_word_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelNoDirection preset: easy (across and down), medium (adds diagonals) or hard (adds backwards). Default medium.
titleNoTitle shown above the puzzle, up to 80 characters. Default Word search.
wordsYesThe words to hide, 3 to 40 of them, each 3 to 15 letters A to Z. Spaces and hyphens inside a word are dropped.
grid_sizeNoSide length of the square grid, 8 to 20. Left out, the size is chosen to fit the words.
directionsNoDirections the words may run: across, down, diagonal and backwards (backwards also reverses the checked groups). Replaces the level's preset.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemYes
viewYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real value: it discloses the return payload (letter grid, word placements, rejected words with reasons) and a link into WordsDesk for printing, PDF export, and sharing. It does not mention limits or failure modes beyond the "did not fit" bucket, but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is a long list of outputs but each item carries information, so it stays efficient.

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 read-only generator with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete: purpose, input bounds, and return contents are all covered. Only the relationship to sibling tools (playing/viewing an existing puzzle) is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents words, level, directions, title, and grid_size including enum meanings and defaults. The description restates the word-count and letter-length bounds but adds nothing about level/directions interaction or grid_size defaults beyond what the schema says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

A specific verb+resource ("Makes a word search") with the input constraints (3–40 words, 3–15 letters) stated up front. It never explicitly contrasts with siblings like play_word_search or theme_words, though "The widget is playable" hints the result is directly usable without another call.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when a user supplies their own word list. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of theme_words as the alternative when the user has no words, and no stated prerequisites.

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

All WordsDesk toolsInspect
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