list_word_listsReturn every detector word/phrase list with its entry count, config key, and sample entries, plus a link to the full browsable library. Read-only, takes no parameters, and returns the same catalog for a given release. Use it to see what the detectors match before tuning a config for check_text; not needed for ordinary checking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is read-only, takes no parameters, and returns the same catalog for a given release, providing behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences: first defines output clearly, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple function, the description covers all necessary aspects: output, behavior, and usage context. Complete for agent decision-making.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description explicitly states 'takes no parameters,' aligning with schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 the tool returns every detector word/phrase list with entry count, config key, sample entries, and a link. It specifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_text by mentioning its use before tuning.
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 explicitly says to use it before tuning a config for check_text and notes it is not needed for ordinary checking, providing clear context and an implicit alternative.
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.
Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose: check_text analyzes text for various issues, fix_duplicates specifically removes duplicate words, and list_word_lists provides metadata about the detection lists. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_text, fix_duplicates, list_word_lists), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Three tools is an appropriate count for a focused writing style checker: analysis, one targeted fix, and introspection. The number feels neither too sparse nor excessive for the domain.
The set covers the core use case of detecting writing issues and provides one automated fix (duplicates) plus lookups of detection rules. Missing are auto-fixes for other issue types and a tool to configure detectors, but the descriptions explicitly note that only duplicates have auto-fix, so the surface is intentionally scoped.