Paceword Speed Reader

Estimate reading time

estimate_reading_time

Read-only

Use this when the user needs a reading-time or speaking-time estimate from text or a word count. Accepts text up to 20,000 characters or 1 to 2,000,000 words, plus 100 to 1,000 wpm or a reader type. Returns a 150 to 800 wpm table; it does not assess reading ability.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "estimate_reading_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Optional text to count without returning it, e.g. The report has three short sections.
`word_count`	No	Optional known word count when text is not supplied, e.g. 1200.
`reader_type`	No	Optional speed profile when no numeric speed is supplied, e.g. average (250 wpm).
`words_per_minute`	No	Optional reading speed from 100 to 1,000 wpm, e.g. 250.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pace_table`	Yes
`word_count`	Yes
`reading_time`	Yes
`selected_wpm`	Yes
`reading_time_ms`	Yes
`speaking_130_wpm`	Yes
`speaking_150_wpm`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add scope detail – and it does: input ceilings (20,000 chars / 2,000,000 words), speed ranges, a described 150-800 wpm table response, and an explicit scope boundary. It stops short of saying how the text/count and wpm/reader-type combinations interact when both are supplied.

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 the invocation trigger, then limits and return shape. The numeric ranges partly echo the schema but are compact enough to justify their place as an at-a-glance summary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the return value needs only light framing, which the '150 to 800 wpm table' phrase provides. What remains missing is resolution of conflicting inputs and any pointer to the sibling tools – small but real gaps for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds something the schema does not: it frames the four optional parameters as two either/or pairs ('text or a word count', '100 to 1,000 wpm or a reader type'). It does not say which value wins if both members of a pair are provided.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (estimate reading-time or speaking-time) plus the input sources it works from. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the clause 'it does not assess reading ability' implicitly draws a line against run_reading_speed_test, so differentiation is present but not fully sharp.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user needs a reading-time or speaking-time estimate from text or a word count.' That is clear context, but it never states when to prefer the sibling tools or what to do instead when the user wants an actual speed assessment.

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

All Paceword Speed Reader tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?