pronunciationsReturn pronunciation strings (IPA, ahd, etc.) for a word from Wordnik; filter by source dictionary and format type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| typeFormat | 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": "conscience"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "raw": {
+ "description": "Raw pronunciation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rawType": {
+ "description": "Type of raw representation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sourceDictionary": {
+ "description": "Source dictionary",
+ "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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying return types (IPA, ahd) and filtering capability. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional filtering.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and filtering options. It does not need to detail return values due to the output schema. Adequate for the complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by source dictionary and format type, hinting at 'sourceDictionary' and 'typeFormat' parameters, but does not explain 'limit', 'useCanonical', or the exact values. This adds some meaning but is incomplete.
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 it returns pronunciation strings for a word from Wordnik, with filtering by source dictionary and format type. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('pronunciation strings'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'definitions' or 'hyphenation'.
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 when to use (when needing pronunciations) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'definitions' or 'hyphenation'. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage context.
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.