Analyze Greek or Hebrew words to get morphological details and root meanings. Enter a word, lemma, or transliteration to uncover its original-language structure and derivation.
Morphological and root analysis for raw original language words, lemmas, or transliterations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | Greek or Hebrew word, lemma, or transliteration |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core behavior — morphological and root analysis — but does not explain what the analysis returns, whether it is read-only, or any limitations such as supported transliteration systems. The behavior is more specific than a tautology but still minimal.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to purpose and input scope. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally say more about what the analysis returns and how to choose this tool over similar siblings. It is adequate for basic invocation — the input parameter is fully documented and the tool's domain is clear — but it leaves the output format and sibling differentiation to inference.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying 'raw original language words' in addition to lemmas and transliterations, clarifying that inflected/raw forms are acceptable input, not just dictionary forms. This is a small but useful distinction beyond the schema's 'word, lemma, or transliteration'.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: morphological and root analysis of Greek or Hebrew words, lemmas, or transliterations. The verb is implicit in 'analysis' but the resource and scope are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_strongs_etymology or get_strongs_definition, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when an agent has a raw original-language word, lemma, or transliteration and needs morphological or root analysis. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related siblings such as get_strongs_etymology or search_semantic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.