estonian-mcp

check_hyphenation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Determine hyphenation points for an Estonian word when line breaks matter, returning character offsets and a marked word with break positions.

Instructions

Line-break positions in one Estonian word (poolitamine); use only when line breaks matter. breaks: character offsets at syllable boundaries, at least 2 characters from either end; preferred: the word with each break marked ·. Compound seams, which Estonian prefers, are among the breaks but not singled out: choose the seam yourself (kooli·maja). A break can also split one vowel off a compound part (maao-manik in maa·o·ma·nik); skip those.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`word`	Yes	One Estonian word, no whitespace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`breaks`	No
`preferred`	No
`syllable_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed13 schema fields changedv0.9.0Oct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / word / description

Previous value: -"A single Estonian word (no whitespace) to find safe line-break positions for."New value: +"One Estonian word, no whitespace."

removedInput schema / properties / word / title
```
Removed value: -"Word"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"check_hyphenationArguments"

removedOutput schema / properties / breaks / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / breaks / title
```
Removed value: -"Breaks"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / note

Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Note",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / preferred / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / preferred / title
```
Removed value: -"Preferred"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian

Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Summary Estonian",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / syllable_count / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / syllable_count / title
```
Removed value: -"Syllable Count"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / word

Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Word",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"_HyphenationResult"
```

First observedv0.2.4Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description goes further by disclosing the shape and constraints of the result: offsets kept at least 2 characters from either end, compound seams present but not flagged, and a caution about breaks that split a vowel residue. The maao-manik example is garbled enough that the exclusion rule is harder to apply than intended, keeping this from a 5.

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?

The scope statement and both return fields are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The nested parenthetical examples make the middle dense, but nothing is plainly padding.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description still supplies the interpretive guidance an agent needs to decide which breaks matter and to not expect a flagged compound seam. Nothing essential is missing.

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 with 100% schema coverage ('One Estonian word, no whitespace'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing new about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('line-break positions in one Estonian word') and names the native term poolitamine, which makes it unambiguous against siblings like syllabify or check_abbreviation_hyphenation. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage ('use only when line breaks matter'), which effectively excludes general-purpose calls. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., syllabify) the way a 5 would, so the routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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