Look up a word's definition in a specified language (such as Spanish, French, German, or Japanese) to resolve vocabulary questions and clarify meaning.
Look up a word in a specific language (es, fr, de, it, ja, etc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | ||
| language | Yes | Language code (e.g. es, fr, de, it, ja) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no indication of what a lookup returns (single entry vs. multiple senses), whether the word must be in the target language's script, or how unknown words are handled.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the brevity is achieved by omission rather than economy — nothing about behavior, return shape, or alternatives.
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?
No output schema and no description of what the lookup returns, on a tool whose entire value is the returned entry. For a two-parameter lookup with half its schema undocumented, the description leaves an agent guessing about output format and word formatting.
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?
With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the language-code examples already present in the schema and says nothing about the 'word' parameter — e.g. whether it must be in the target language, accented, or lowercase.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (look up a word) scoped to a non-English language via the language code, which is more than a tautology. But it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as dictionary_lookup, wiktionary_lookup or jisho_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether this returns definitions, translations, or entries in a monolingual dictionary.
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?
Only implied usage (look up non-English words). There is no statement of when to prefer this over dictionary_lookup or wiktionary_lookup, no mention that the language parameter is mandatory for non-English lookups, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.