Skip to main content
Glama

words

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Find Words

find_words
Read-onlyIdempotent

Advanced word search. Find words matching a combination of meaning, pronunciation, and spelling constraints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoAlias for meaning_like.
wordNoAlias for meaning_like.
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 10)
queryNoAlias for meaning_like.
sounds_likeNoFind words that sound like this word (approximate pronunciation)
meaning_likeNoFind words with meaning similar to this phrase (e.g. "ocean"). Accepts query, word, text as aliases.
spelled_likeNoFind words spelled like this pattern (use * as wildcard, e.g. "b*ttle")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYesList of matching words ranked by score

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only that constraints can be combined, but does not detail actual behavior like AND semantics, default limits, or result ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'Advanced word search' and immediately followed by the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, aliases, wildcards), the description is minimal. It does not explain how multiple constraints are combined (AND vs OR) or that all constraints are optional. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the description alone is only adequate for basic selection.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond vaguely referencing meaning, pronunciation, and spelling. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Advanced word search. Find words matching a combination of meaning, pronunciation, and spelling constraints.' This clearly specifies the tool's function, and the mention of combined constraints distinguishes it from siblings like find_rhymes, find_synonyms, and find_related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for advanced searches that combine multiple constraint types, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over simpler alternatives or provide any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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

All words 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, and between prediction market tools like bet_research and polymarket_edges. Descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case but lack a consistent pattern. Some start with verbs (ask, compare, find), others are nouns (autocomplete, entity_profile), and many are long phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, scan_competitor_ai_presence). The naming feels ad-hoc and not easy to predict.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this server is over-packed for a server named 'words'. Many tools are unrelated to words (e.g., prediction markets, subscriptions, entity profiles). The scope is too broad, making it feel like a catch-all rather than a coherent set.

Completeness3/5

The word tools are limited (only 6), leaving obvious gaps for a word-focused server (e.g., no dictionary lookup, no word definitions). However, the server covers a wide range of data domains through meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, which compensates but makes the purpose unclear.

Resources