Checks text for grammar, spelling, and style issues using LanguageTool to return corrections that improve writing accuracy.
Check text for grammar, spelling, and style issues using LanguageTool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to check. | |
| language | No | Language code (default: auto). E.g. en-US, de-DE, fr. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only the scope of issues checked; it says nothing about rate limits (relevant for the hosted LanguageTool API), text-length limits, or how failures surface.
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 filler; the purpose arrives immediately. It is arguably too terse for what it omits, but nothing present is wasted.
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 exists, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back (issue list, offsets, suggestions) and it does not say. For a low-complexity, two-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap around return shape and input size limits.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'text' and 'language' (with example codes and auto default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 ('check') and resource ('text') plus the exact issue classes (grammar, spelling, style) and the backing engine (LanguageTool). It is clear on its own, but never differentiates itself from the sibling languagetool_languages, which an agent may confuse it with.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'check'; there is no statement of when to prefer this tool, whether languagetool_languages is a prerequisite for looking up codes, or any prerequisite/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.