language-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_us_english_textA | Check English text for US English compliance: typos (hunspell en_US) + British spellings/vocabulary (colour, whilst, towards, bespoke, webshop, sole trader...) with US replacements. Use for EN pages, blogs, US-facing copy. |
| check_dutch_textA | Spell-check Dutch text locally (OpenTaal/hunspell). Returns unknown words with suggestions and positions. Use for CVs, cover letters, blog articles, any Dutch prose. |
| dutch_word_detailsA | Get official Dutch word details from woordenlijst.org: lemma, woordsoort, uitspraak, syllabisering/afbreking, verkleinwoord, paradigm. Slower (network); use for individual important words, not bulk. |
| validate_us_wordA | Check quickly (lokaal) of één Engels woord correct gespeld is volgens US English, met suggesties. Detecteert ook Britse spelling voor losse woorden. |
| validate_dutch_wordA | Check quickly (lokaal) of één Nederlands woord correct gespeld is, met suggesties bij foute spelling. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: full-text checking (check_us_english_text, check_dutch_text) vs single-word validation (validate_us_word, validate_dutch_word) vs dictionary lookup (dutch_word_details). The descriptions explicitly state scope (text vs one word), eliminating ambiguity. Even the English and Dutch pairs are clearly separated by language and granularity.
Naming follows a consistent verb-based pattern: 'check_' for full-text tools and 'validate_' for single-word tools, with language identifiers. However, 'dutch_word_details' deviates from the pattern (no verb, inverted noun order) and English language identifiers vary ('us_english' vs 'us'). Overall readable, but minor inconsistencies prevent a perfect score.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for a language-checking server, covering both Dutch and US English at two levels (bulk text and individual words) plus a dictionary lookup. Each tool serves a distinct need without redundancy, and the count is not excessive or trivial.
The surface covers the core workflows: checking full text for both languages, validating individual words, and providing Dutch word details. Minor gaps exist, such as no English dictionary details and no explicit grammar checking, but the stated purpose (spelling and US English vocabulary compliance) is fully addressed. Agents can accomplish common tasks without dead ends.