get_synonymsFind synonyms and antonyms for any word. Returns similar words and opposites, useful for writing and paraphrasing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | The word to find synonyms/antonyms for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "word": "happy"
+ },
+ {
+ "word": "difficult"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "antonyms": {
+ "description": "Empty array when word not found",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "description": "Word not found in dictionary",
+ "enum": [
+ false
+ ],
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "synonyms": {
+ "description": "Empty array when word not found",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "word": {
+ "description": "The word queried",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "word",
+ "found",
+ "synonyms",
+ "antonyms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "antonyms": {
+ "description": "List of antonym words",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "description": "Word found in dictionary",
+ "enum": [
+ true
+ ],
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "synonyms": {
+ "description": "List of synonym words",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "word": {
+ "description": "The word queried",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "word",
+ "found",
+ "synonyms",
+ "antonyms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesRemoved value: -[
- {
- "word": "happy"
- },
- {
- "word": "difficult"
- }
-]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "oneOf": [
- {
- "properties": {
- "antonyms": {
- "description": "Empty array when word not found",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "found": {
- "description": "Word not found in dictionary",
- "enum": [
- false
- ],
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "synonyms": {
- "description": "Empty array when word not found",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "word": {
- "description": "The word queried",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "word",
- "found",
- "synonyms",
- "antonyms"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "properties": {
- "antonyms": {
- "description": "List of antonym words",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "found": {
- "description": "Word found in dictionary",
- "enum": [
- true
- ],
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "synonyms": {
- "description": "List of synonym words",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "word": {
- "description": "The word queried",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "word",
- "found",
- "synonyms",
- "antonyms"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- }
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "antonyms": {
+ "description": "Empty array when word not found",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "description": "Word not found in dictionary",
+ "enum": [
+ false
+ ],
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "synonyms": {
+ "description": "Empty array when word not found",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "word": {
+ "description": "The word queried",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "word",
+ "found",
+ "synonyms",
+ "antonyms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "antonyms": {
+ "description": "List of antonym words",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "description": "Word found in dictionary",
+ "enum": [
+ true
+ ],
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "synonyms": {
+ "description": "List of synonym words",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "word": {
+ "description": "The word queried",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "word",
+ "found",
+ "synonyms",
+ "antonyms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "word": "happy"
+ },
+ {
+ "word": "difficult"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, only noting that it 'returns similar words and opposites.' Since output schema exists, this return behavior is likely already documented there.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Find synonyms and antonyms'), followed by the return type and use case. Every part is relevant and no words are wasted.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with a complete schema and output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. It includes the return behavior and a use case ('writing and paraphrasing'). It could be improved by explicitly noting that it works for any word or contrasting with define_word, but these are not necessary for basic completeness.
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% for the single parameter 'word', and the schema description already explains its purpose. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find synonyms and antonyms for any word.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'define_word' tool, as it explicitly mentions synonyms/antonyms rather than definitions.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'useful for writing and paraphrasing.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would elevate the score further.
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.
Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router with only an evidence-extraction difference. polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage also overlap heavily in surfacing mispricings, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence.
There are recognizable patterns: ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, verb_noun pairs like define_word, get_synonyms, resolve_entity. However, conventions are mixed across the set — ask_pipeworx_beta uses a suffix, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are phrased in different styles, and memory tools (remember/recall/forget) follow yet another pattern. Readable but not predictable.
33 tools is heavy for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx variants, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, memory tools) that inflate the surface. The count would be defensible if each tool were orthogonal, but the overlap in research/Polymarket/memory areas means several tools do not earn their place.
For the actual Pipeworx data-access domain, coverage is quite rich: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and discovery tools all exist. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no tool to manage account/API keys, patents soft-fail), but the core query-research-monitor lifecycle is well covered. The server name 'dictionary' is misleading — only two tools serve a dictionary purpose — yet the inferred domain from descriptions is a data gateway, for which the surface is strong.