Look up a Chinese word, pinyin, or English term in the HSK Studio dictionary to get pinyin, meaning, HSK level, and related words.
Look up a Chinese word, pinyin or English word in the HSK Studio dictionary. Returns pinyin, meaning, HSK level and related words.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | A Chinese word, a pinyin string or an English word |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents (pinyin, meaning, HSK level, related words), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ambiguous/multi-match behavior, exact vs fuzzy matching, or permission/auth requirements of the dictionary service.
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 tight sentences: the first front-loads purpose and query scope, the second covers returns. No filler, and the ordering puts the most important information first.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output-schema-free response, the description covers both input forms and the shape of the result set. It is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (multiple matches, no match) is unspecified, which is minor at this complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted query types. The description restates those same three forms (Chinese word, pinyin, English) without adding format guidance such as tone-mark handling or matching behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Look up a Chinese word, pinyin or English word in the HSK Studio dictionary" gives a specific verb (look up), a concrete resource (word/dictionary), and enumerates the accepted query forms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling browsing tools like list_words_by_level, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool for resolving a known query into a definition, versus siblings that list or check content. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., list_words_by_level for browsing by level).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.