relatedReturn words related to a given word by relationship type (synonym, antonym, hypernym, hyponym, etc.) from Wordnik's relatedWords endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | ||
| useCanonical | No | ||
| relationshipTypes | No | ||
| limitPerRelationshipType | 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": "happiness"
+ },
+ {
+ "relationshipTypes": "synonym,antonym",
+ "word": "beautiful"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "relationshipType": {
+ "description": "Type of relationship",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "words": {
+ "description": "Related words",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "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=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses Wordnik's relatedWords endpoint, giving source transparency. No contradictions, and no additional behavioral traits needed beyond annotations and source.
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, concise and front-loaded. Could briefly mention optional parameters, but remains efficient.
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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and source adequately for a simple query tool. Could address edge cases like empty results, but not critically missing.
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 0%. Description explains 'word' and 'relationshipTypes' (listing example values), but does not mention 'useCanonical' or 'limitPerRelationshipType'. This leaves half the parameters without any extra meaning beyond their names.
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 related words for a given word, naming relationship types like synonym, antonym. It distinguishes from sibling tools like definitions or examples by specifying the endpoint and purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like definitions, examples, or phrases. The purpose is clear but lacks comparative context for an agent to choose among many sibling tools.
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.