definitionParsed definitions grouped by part-of-speech sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Wiktionary subdomain (en | fr | de | ja | ...) | |
| word | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior; description adds useful context about grouping by POS, which goes beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.
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 lookup tool with output schema, the description is mostly adequate but the missing parameter documentation for 'word' is a clear gap.
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 only 50% (word parameter lacks description) and the description does not explain any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns parsed definitions grouped by part-of-speech sections, distinguishing it from sibling tools like etymology or pronunciations.
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context or exclusions.
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.
The toolset is overwhelmingly fragmented: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk heavily overlap; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence cover the same task. The five actual Wiktionary tools are distinct but are lost among dozens of unrelated research and prediction-market tools, making selection highly ambiguous.
All names use snake_case and several logical prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_) create local patterns. However, the naming mixes noun-style commands (definition, etymology, pronunciations, summary) with verb-style commands (search, remember, forget, validate_claim), and no consistent verb_noun convention carries across the whole set.
36 tools is already heavy, but the deeper problem is that only 5 tools actually belong to a Wiktionary server while 31 tools serve unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and marketing-audit functions. The count is wildly inappropriate for the declared server purpose.
The Wiktionary-relevant tools cover basic word lookup—search, summary, definition, etymology, pronunciations—but omit common dictionary operations like translations, usage examples, inflected forms, or random entries. The non-Wiktionary majority does not fill these gaps; it just makes the surface area incoherent and hard to reason about.