list_word_listsReturn every detector word/phrase list with its entry count, config key, and sample entries, plus a link to the full browsable library. Read-only, takes no parameters, and returns the same catalog for a given release. Use it to see what the detectors match before tuning a config for check_text; not needed for ordinary checking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only safety. The description adds that it returns the same catalog for a given release, indicating determinism, and details the output contents. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added deterministic/release-bound behavior goes beyond the annotation.
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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second adds determinism and read-only nature, the third gives usage guidance. No filler 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 simple zero-parameter tool and existing annotations, the description is complete. It describes the return value in detail (entry count, config key, samples, link) and provides usage context, which is sufficient since no output schema exists.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes this and adds no conflicting or extra parameter information, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 returns every detector word/phrase list with entry count, config key, sample entries, and a link to the library. It differentiates from siblings like check_text by noting its use for inspecting match rules before tuning configs.
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 states when to use: 'before tuning a config for check_text', and when not needed: 'not needed for ordinary checking'. This provides clear guidance on its role versus alternative tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_text analyzes text for issues, fix_duplicates handles a specific correction, and list_word_lists provides configuration details. There is no overlap or confusion between analysis, fixing, and introspection.
All three tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_text, fix_duplicates, list_word_lists. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
The server uses only 3 tools, which is minimal but acceptable for a focused writing style checker. It covers core analysis plus one fix and one introspection tool, though the surface feels slightly thin.
The server provides a solid core check function and a duplicate fixer, but lacks configuration tools, file input (on the hosted server), and fixes for other issue types. These are notable gaps that limit its usefulness for full writing style management.