Skip to main content
Glama

Wordnik

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search

search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Wordnik dictionary by query string with wildcard support; filter by part of speech, length, and corpus count. Returns matching word strings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skipNo
limitNo
queryYes
maxLengthNo
minLengthNo
caseSensitiveNo
minCorpusCountNo
minDictionaryCountNo
excludePartOfSpeechNo
includePartOfSpeechNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalResultsNoTotal number of results
searchResultsNoSearch results

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "cat"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 20,
+    "minLength": 4,
+    "query": "^un"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "searchResults": {
+      "description": "Search results",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Result ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "word": {
+            "description": "Matched word",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "totalResults": {
+      "description": "Total number of results",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds wildcard support and return type (word strings), but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or result ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action and result. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return type is covered. However, with 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detailed parameter guidance. Currently leaves many parameters undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions filtering by part of speech, length, and corpus count but does not map to specific parameter names like includePartOfSpeech, minLength, minCorpusCount. Does not explain wildcard syntax or required query param.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Describes tool as searching Wordnik dictionary with query string and wildcard support, and mentions filtering by part of speech, length, and corpus count. Clear verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_within or deep_research.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not list exclusions or mention context such as query limitations.

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

All Wordnik 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
Disambiguation4/5

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 Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources