multilingual-dictionary-mcp

dictionary_meronyms

Retrieve meronyms (parts or components) of any word using ConceptNet PartOf relation. Example: car yields wheel.

Instructions

Meronyms (parts/components) via offline ConceptNet PartOf. E.g. car -> wheel.

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": {
      "word": "<word>"
    },
    "name": "dictionary_meronyms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`word`	Yes
`language`	No	en
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.4May 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / language / description
```
Removed value: -"ISO 639-1 language code"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / word / description
```
Removed value: -"The word to look up"
```
First observedv0.2.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions 'offline' but lacks details on behavior like error handling, rate limits, or result format for missing words.

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 short, direct sentences with no unnecessary text. Front-loaded with purpose and example.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Missing output schema and annotations; description does not explain return structure, error cases, or handling of edge cases (e.g., non-English words). Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter details (e.g., what 'word', 'language', or 'limit' mean). The example is insufficient.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves meronyms (parts) via ConceptNet and gives an example (car -> wheel). Distinguishes from siblings like hypernyms/hyponyms.

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?

No guidance on when to use meronyms versus other relation tools (e.g., holonyms, hypernyms). The description does not specify context or alternatives.

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