hyphenationReturn hyphenation breakpoints and syllable stress for a word from Wordnik's hyphenation endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| useCanonical | No | ||
| sourceDictionary | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "word": "antidisestablishmentarianism"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "sourceDictionary": {
+ "description": "Source dictionary",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "description": "Hyphenated form",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Hyphenation type",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the data comes from Wordnik's endpoint, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, rate limits) are disclosed.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return', contains no wasted words, and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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?
The description adequately covers the core functionality and leverages the existing output schema. However, it does not describe optional parameters, leaving gaps in completeness for users needing to customize the request.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'a word', adding no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like limit, useCanonical, and sourceDictionary are left unexplained, providing minimal value.
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 returns 'hyphenation breakpoints and syllable stress for a word' from a specific source (Wordnik's hyphenation endpoint). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'definitions' or 'pronunciations' by specifying the exact linguistic data returned.
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 implies usage for obtaining hyphenation data, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'definitions' or 'pronunciations'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially between Wordnik and Pipeworx domains. However, some overlap exists among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research) and company lookups (entity_profile vs compare_entities), but descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate them in most cases.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded), and some are single words (remember, recall). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, though groups like polymarket_* and scan_* provide some consistency within their subsets.
With 42 tools, the server is overloaded. It combines two distinct services (Wordnik dictionary and Pipeworx data) into one set, making it feel like two servers merged. Many tools are niche (e.g., hyphenation, random_words), increasing count without clear benefit. A split would improve coherence.
The Wordnik coverage is thorough (definitions, examples, pronunciation, frequency, etc.), and Pipeworx covers a wide range of data sources with tools for basic lookups, comparisons, research, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for Wordnik data), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the intended use.