Skip to main content
Glama

Explain a root or idea

explain
Read-only

Look up a Greek root, idea, myth, or word origin to get its spelling, meaning, a Texas example, a teaching line, and related words.

Instructions

Look up a Greek root, idea, myth or word origin (e.g. "tele", "hubris", "mentor", "telescope", "rodeo"). Returns the Greek spelling, meaning, a Texas example, a one-line way to teach it and example words.

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": {
      "term": "<term>"
    },
    "name": "explain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYesA root, idea, or English word.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well by enumerating the returned fields (Greek spelling, meaning, Texas example, teaching line, example words). It does not say what happens when a term isn't found, which is the main remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the payoff. The example list is slightly long but each item demonstrates a different accepted input type, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value explanation, and it identifies the sole required parameter implicitly through examples. The missing piece is sibling disambiguation from break_down_word, which matters given seven siblings.

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% and the single parameter's description already defines it, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by giving five example inputs spanning a root ("tele"), an idea ("hubris"), a name ("mentor") and English words ("telescope", "rodeo"), clarifying the accepted input range.

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?

Specific verb ("look up") plus a well-scoped resource set (Greek root, idea, myth, word origin), with examples that make the resource concrete. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling break_down_word, which appears to overlap on word analysis.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical examples show the kind of term to pass, which is genuine but indirect guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over break_down_word or root_of_the_day, and no note on behavior for unknown terms.

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