Skip to main content
Glama

Break down a word

break_down_word
Read-only

Find the Greek roots inside any English word (e.g. photophobia = photo 'light' + phob 'fear'). Works on words outside the course too. Matching is by spelling, so it says when nothing fits.

Instructions

Find the Greek roots inside any English word (e.g. photophobia = photo 'light' + phob 'fear'). Works on words outside the course too. Matching is by spelling, so it says when nothing fits.

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": "break_down_word"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wordYesAn English word, like telemetry or hydrotherapy.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description must carry behavior, and it does add real context: matching is surface-spelling based, and the tool reports when nothing fits rather than failing silently. It does not describe output shape, but the failure-mode disclosure is the key behavioral risk an agent needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and example, then the scope and limitation. No filler sentences; every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, matching method and the no-match case. Missing only minor detail such as whether multiple decomposition candidates are returned.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with its own example ('telemetry or hydrotherapy'). The description adds an example word but no format rules; notably it says 'any English word' without mentioning the schema's 60-character limit, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it locates Greek roots inside an English word, with a worked example (photophobia = photo + phob). It also distinguishes itself from the course-oriented siblings by stating it works on words outside the course.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States the operating scope ('works on words outside the course too') and the matching method ('by spelling'), which tells an agent what kinds of inputs are appropriate. It does not explicitly compare against root_of_the_day or explain when not to use it, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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