estonian-mcp

check_abbreviation_hyphenation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks Estonian abbreviation hyphenation, flagging endings attached directly to all-capital stems (OÜle → OÜ-le) and related stem-vowel or ordinal issues while accepting other valid hyphenless forms.

Instructions

Flags an ending that starts with l written straight onto an all-capital abbreviation: OÜle → OÜ-le, ÜROlt → ÜRO-lt, THIl → THI-l. EKI finds the hyphen clearer there. Every other hyphenless form (ELi, ELis, APIga, MCPst, ASile) is as correct as the hyphenated one and is not flagged: keep the text's own choice.

A stem read with a final consonant also needs the stem vowel i (ASle → AS-ile, ELlt → EL-ilt); a Roman ordinal up to XXXIX before a noun or adjective in the same case drops the ending (XIIl sajandil → XII).

Any all-capital stem counts, known or not; mixed-case ones (SaaS, PhD, iOS) and chloride formulas (HCl, NH4Cl) are not checked.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Estonian text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issues`	No
`summary_estonian`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.9.0Oct 24, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / text / description
```
Previous value: -"Estonian text to check for abbreviation case-ending hyphenation (MCPst → MCP-st)."New value: +"Estonian text."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / text / title
```
Removed value: -"Text"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"check_abbreviation_hyphenationArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / issues / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / issues / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / issues / title
```
Removed value: -"Issues"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / note
```
Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Note",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian / title
```
Removed value: -"Summary Estonian"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / text
```
Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Text",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"_CheckResult"
```
First observedv0.2.4Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-surface burden is largely pre-carried. The description adds genuine behavioral context by enumerating the non-flagging cases and the extra stem-vowel and Roman-ordinal rules, which no structured field conveys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the flagging rule and its examples, then exceptions, then scope boundaries — each block earns its place. It is dense with examples and secondary rules but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a one-parameter checker with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the rule semantics an agent needs to interpret and trust the results. The only gap is that it never clarifies its division of labour with the sibling check_hyphenation, which matters given both exist.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'text', with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already tells the agent what to pass. The description adds no constraint on language, length, or expected input form beyond noting the examples are Estonian, leaving this at the 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?

The description states a specific rule-based check with three worked examples (OÜle → OÜ-le, ÜROlt → ÜRO-lt, THIl → THI-l), so an agent knows exactly what pattern is being flagged. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling check_hyphenation, which an agent could reasonably assume covers the same ground.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives strong positive and negative scoping: hyphenless forms like ELi, APIga, MCPst are explicitly declared correct and not flagged, and mixed-case stems and chloride formulas are excluded. What it lacks is any routing guidance against the alternative hyphenation/compounds checks that sit among the siblings.

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