estonian-mcp

check_compounds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Flags common Estonian compound words wrongly split into two and suggests the correct joined spelling, e.g. kooli maja → koolimaja.

Instructions

Flags compounds wrongly written as two words (liitsõnaõigekiri): kooli maja → koolimaja.

Matches a curated list of about 30 common splits, so a hit is reliable but most compounds are not covered.

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 wrongly split compound words."New value: +"Estonian text."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / text / title
```
Removed value: -"Text"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"check_compoundsArguments"
```
- 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: an approximate 30-item curated list, high precision on hits, and likely false negatives otherwise.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler: the purpose and example come first, and the coverage caveat follows where it is needed. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter, read-only checker with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually, and its main limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret a null result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter and it is already documented as 'Estonian text.' A bonus is that the description's worked example clarifies the expected unit of input (word/compound pair in context) rather than just a language tag, reinforcing the schema without contradicting it.

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 verb and resource ('Flags compounds wrongly written as two words'), gives the Estonian term, and shows a concrete input→output example (`kooli maja` → `koolimaja`). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby `check_compound_familiarity` sibling, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence sets expectations for when results are trustworthy: a hit is reliable, but 'most compounds are not covered', which tells the agent how to interpret and when not to rely on a clean pass. There is no explicit routing to an alternative tool for broader coverage, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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