lookup_headwordLook up an Old English headword (macrons optional) in the eldertongue dictionary. Returns senses, IPA, syllables, part of speech, gender, noun declension / verb class, etymology, and the eldertongue.com page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | Old English headword, macrons optional (e.g. cyning, cyninges, scieppan). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on output disclosure by enumerating senses, IPA, syllables, POS, gender, declension/verb class, etymology, and the source page URL, but says nothing about what happens when a word is not found, whether the lookup is exact-match only, or whether results are cached or rate-limited.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return payload. There is no filler and the parenthetical constraint sits right where the parameter first appears.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole carrier of return-value information, and it enumerates the response fields thoroughly for a one-parameter read tool. The only real gap is failure/empty-result behavior, which is minor for a simple lookup.
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% and the single parameter is already documented with examples and the macrons-optional note, which the description merely restates. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new meaning about the word parameter.
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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Old English headword') plus the source dictionary, so the agent knows this is a dictionary entry lookup rather than a morphological operation. It does not name the sibling tools it differs from (identify_form, inflect, english_to_old_english), so the distinction is implied by 'headword' rather than made explicit.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The parenthetical 'macrons optional' gives a small practical cue, but the agent must infer that this tool is for whole-lexeme lookup while inflect/identify_form handle form-level analysis.
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.