estonian-mcp

analyze_morphology

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes Estonian words to return lemma, part of speech, form, root, and ending, helping resolve inflection and compound-word ambiguity in text.

Instructions

Morphological analysis of each word (punctuation omitted): word, lemma, partofspeech (pos_tag's tags), form (Vabamorf code, "" if uninflected), root (_ joins compound parts), ending ("0" = none).

Present only when they apply: form_estonian (the form's Estonian name), clitic, root_tokens (compound parts), analyses_count (>1: still ambiguous in context), usage_note (archaic, foreign, abbreviation, interjection, proper-noun) and the more precise usage_note_estonian (often names the neutral word), indeclinable: true (keeps its base form before a noun: täis, tuntud, täitmata; check it before declining a noun phrase).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Estonian text.
`all_analyses`	No	Return every reading left after in-context disambiguation, in an `analyses` list, instead of only the most likely one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.9.0Oct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / all_analyses / description

Previous value: -"Return every ambiguous analysis per word instead of only the most likely one."New value: +"Return every reading left after in-context disambiguation, in an `analyses` list, instead of only the most likely one."

removedInput schema / properties / all_analyses / title
```
Removed value: -"All Analyses"
```

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Estonian text to analyse morphologically."New value: +"Estonian text."

removedInput schema / properties / text / title
```
Removed value: -"Text"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"analyze_morphologyArguments"

removedOutput schema / properties / result / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```

removedOutput schema / title

Removed value: -"analyze_morphologyOutput"

First observedv0.2.4Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real semantic context: what 'form' codes mean ("" if uninflected, "0" = none), that `_` joins compound parts, that `analyses_count` >1 signals residual ambiguity, and practical guidance that `indeclinable` should be checked before declining a noun phrase. This is genuine behavioral value rather than a restatement of annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, which is good, but the bulk is a dense catalogue of output fields that largely duplicates the existing output schema. Every sentence is informative in isolation, yet the overall proportion of redundant return-value detail is high.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An agent can tell what the tool returns in detail, but with an output schema already present that detail is partly wasted, and nothing addresses input behavior, output size, or how this differs from the many sibling analysis tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool in a 27-sibling family.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (text, all_analyses) are documented in the schema. The description mentions ambiguity and analyses_count but never explains the `text` input or the `all_analyses` toggle, so it adds nothing beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('morphological analysis of each word') and enumerates the per-word fields produced, so an agent knows this is a full morphological parse rather than a tokenizer or tagger. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like pos_tag, lemmatize, or paradigm, leaving the superset relationship to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of pos_tag, lemmatize, or paradigm, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit cue is that the field list overlaps those narrower tools, which the agent must infer on its own.

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