Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bunpro MCP

Bunpro MCP

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_vocab

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Bunpro vocabulary item by its slug or ID to view its details. Use this lookup when you need the exact record for a specific word or grammar point.

Instructions

Get a vocabulary item by slug or ID

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vocab": "<vocab>"
    },
    "name": "get_vocab"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vocabYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds only the acceptable identifier forms; it says nothing about miss behavior (error vs empty) for a lookup tool despite the schema requiring a non-empty string.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the key fact front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, so efficiency is not the problem.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup this is close to adequate, and there is no output schema to explain return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations about failure modes, the description could reasonably say what is returned or what happens when the identifier is not found.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'vocab' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that the value may be either a slug or an ID, which is genuinely useful, but it gives no format hints or examples to help the agent construct a valid identifier.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (a vocabulary item) and specifies the two accepted lookup keys. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from near-name siblings such as get_vocab_notes or get_vocab_neighbors, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_vocab_notes, get_vocab_neighbors, or search. The agent is left to infer that this fetches the base vocabulary record rather than derived or related data.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools