multilingual-dictionary-mcp

dictionary_spelled_like

Find English words matching a spelling pattern with wildcards (?, *). Useful for solving crosswords.

Instructions

Find English words matching a spelling pattern via offline CMU dict. '?' = any single letter, '*' = any zero+ letters. Useful for crosswords.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "dictionary_spelled_like"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pattern`	Yes	Spelling pattern (e.g. 'h?llo', 'hel', 'pp')
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the offline nature and wildcard behavior but does not disclose response format, no-match behavior, or case sensitivity. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, then critical details (wildcards) and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters. No output schema, so description could clarify return format (e.g., 'returns a list of matched words'), but the core functionality is well covered. Given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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?

The schema describes 'pattern' with examples and 'limit' with defaults. The description adds wildcard semantics beyond the schema, but 'limit' gets no extra explanation. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates partially.

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 states it finds English words by spelling pattern, explaining wildcards '?' and '*'. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., dictionary_rhymes, dictionary_sounds_like) by focusing on pattern matching. However, it could be more explicit about being a pattern-based search tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions usefulness for crosswords, implying a use case, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like dictionary_lookup or dictionary_means_like are not compared, leaving the agent to infer.

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