Icelandic Morphology MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well by detailing the tool's behavior: it performs a lookup, returns a structured dict with specific fields (found, search_key, entries), and explains the search key adjustment (z->s replacement). It covers the output format comprehensively, though it lacks information on error handling or rate limits.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by detailed explanations of arguments and returns in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return values in detail. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential limitations or error cases, slightly reducing completeness for a tool with no structured output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, which it does excellently. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'word' is (e.g., 'Icelandic word form' with examples like 'hestur') and clarifies the purpose of 'at_sentence_start' (checking lowercase forms for capitalized words at sentence start), providing practical context not in the schema.

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 specific action ('Look up an Icelandic word form'), the resource ('BÍN'), and the outcome ('return all matching entries'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it finds 'all possible interpretations' including lemma, word class, and grammatical tags, unlike get_lemma or get_variant which likely focus on specific aspects.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., for looking up word forms and their interpretations) and includes a practical example for the 'at_sentence_start' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the distinction is implied by the detailed functionality described.

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