Skip to main content
Glama
giuliocapecchi

Jisho MCP

by giuliocapecchi
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have distinct purposes: search_words is for flexible keyword/filtered searches, while get_word is for exact slug lookup. They overlap slightly since get_word performs a search internally, but the descriptions clearly differentiate them and guide users to the appropriate tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_words and get_word. The verbs are clear and the pattern is predictable, making it easy to infer tool behavior from the name.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels slightly thin for a language dictionary service, though it covers the core search and exact-lookup needs. The count is borderline appropriate for a focused Jisho wrapper but leaves little room for other operations.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the primary lookup workflows: searching with filters and retrieving a specific word by slug. It lacks dedicated tools for related features like kanji details or example sentences, but most dictionary needs are met through the search functionality.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool performs a read-only operation, whether it accesses an external service, any rate limits, or error behavior. The only added behavioral context is that it supports Jisho filters, which is more about parameter usage than operational behavior.

    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?

    The description is succinct, with a clear first sentence stating the tool's purpose and a second sentence providing valuable examples. No redundant information is included, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

    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?

    For a two-parameter search tool with a complete output schema, the description is largely adequate. It clearly communicates what the tool does and how to use the keyword parameter. The main gap is the lack of explicit comparison with the sibling tool get_word, which would help the agent choose between them in context.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples of valid keyword values (e.g., '#jlpt-n5', '#verb', '水', 'water'), which enriches the schema's brief mention of 'filters and wildcards'. This helps the agent understand the flexibility of the keyword parameter beyond the structural definition.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Jisho.org for words matching a keyword.' It specifies the resource (Jisho.org), the action (search), and the payload (words matching a keyword). It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool get_word by focusing on search rather than retrieval of a specific word, and mentions support for a wide range of filters.

    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 explains that the tool supports all Jisho search filters and provides examples, implying it is the appropriate tool for flexible keyword-based search. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling get_word, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that despite the name 'get_word', there is no by-slug endpoint, so it performs a keyword search and filters for an exact slug match. It also states the None return case. This goes beyond a simple operational summary, though it doesn't mention any permissions, rate limits, or other side effects, which are likely irrelevant for this read-only lookup.

    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?

    The description is concise: three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary purpose, then covers edge behavior, implementation note, and alternative. No fluff or redundant text.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, exact-match behavior, the underlying search mechanism, the None return case, and the sibling alternative. An output schema exists to detail the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain that. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to use it correctly.

    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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'slug' with examples and 'exact word slug'. The description reiterates 'exact Jisho slug' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a single word by its exact Jisho slug.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('single word', 'exact Jisho slug'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_words' by noting that fuzzy lookup should use that alternative.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides explicit usage guidance: it's for exact slug lookups, and explicitly directs users to 'search_words' for fuzzy lookup. It also clarifies the behavior when no exact match exists (returns None), helping the agent decide when to call this tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

jisho-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jisho-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/giuliocapecchi/jisho-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server