Skip to main content
Glama

Wiktionary

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Etymology

etymology
Read-onlyIdempotent

Etymology section extracted from wikitext.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo
wordYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wordYesThe word queried
foundNoWhether etymology section was found
sectionNoName of the etymology section
wikitextNoRaw wikitext content of the etymology section
section_numberNoSection number identifier
available_sectionsNoAvailable sections when etymology not found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the etymology comes from wikitext, providing minimal extra context. No contradictions.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given rich annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify output format, source of wikitext, or language scope, leaving significant ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the meaning or usage of the 'lang' and 'word' parameters beyond their names and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Etymology section extracted from wikitext' clearly states the action (extracting) and the resource (etymology section from wikitext). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'definition' and 'pronunciations'.

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?

No usage context, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description does not help an agent decide when to use this tool versus others.

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

All Wiktionary toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources