Skip to main content
Glama

A word's Wikipedia and Wikidata facts

ud_get_word_notability
Read-onlyIdempotent

A word's Wikipedia and Wikidata facts. Pass word (such as harbor).

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": {
      "word": "<word>"
    },
    "name": "ud_get_word_notability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wordYesThe catalog slug, the word, or `wrd_<id>`.
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: wikipediaTitle, backlinks, languages, wikidataId, description.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNoThe day of the answer, and the page cursor of a list.
linksNoLinks of the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data domain and an example value, but it does not explain lookup behavior such as missing-word handling or defaults.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: it states the data domain, then the required input with an example. The first sentence largely restates the title, but there is no unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup with a rich schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool. It remains incomplete around when to choose it over sibling tools and what "notability" specifically means here.

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 both `word` and `fields`. The description adds only an example input (`harbor`) and does not clarify the optional `fields` filter beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the resource and data type: "A word's Wikipedia and Wikidata facts." It does not explain the "notability" angle from the tool name or distinguish this lookup from siblings such as ud_resolve_word.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only guidance is to "Pass `word` (such as harbor)," which explains invocation but not when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or the related word-resolution tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.