estonian-mcp

check_object_case

Read-onlyIdempotent

Flags Estonian direct objects in the wrong case (nominative/genitive) after negation or partitive-only verbs, and detects teavitama/teatama government errors with case suggestions.

Instructions

Flags a direct object in the wrong case (käändeõpetus): a common noun in nominative or genitive (form) after

negation-requires-partitive: negation (ei söönud leib → leiba), or
partitive-only-verb: verb, one of nine verbs such as armastama, vajama and ootama that always take a partitive object.

The negation rule skips any sentence containing olema (pole, ei ole, pole näinud). The fix is the partitive of lemma in the number form shows; take it from paradigm. With no parser, a hit may be a subject or an adverbial, so treat it as worth a second look.

Two more rules check the government of teavitama (keda + millest) and teatama (kellele + millest), and add a suggestion:

teavitama-allative-recipient: teavitama or informeerima, or their noun teavitamine or informeerimine (verb), with the person or body in the allative (teavitas politseile; word is the allative phrase).
teatama-partitive-person: teatama with a partitive personal pronoun (Teatame Teid, et ...).

The fix is either teavitama + partitive (teavitas politseid) or teatama + allative (teatas politseile); for the noun, Rahapesu Andmebüroo teavitamine or teatamine Rahapesu Andmebüroole. Recall is low by design: a clause that already has a partitive object (teavitab õpilastele hindeid), an allative before the verb, an allative that a participle, adjective or action noun governs (teavitada isikut talle seatud piirangust), one whose head noun is not a person or body (kolimisest teisele korrusele), the experiencer of an adverb or a translative (meile teadaolevalt, kõigile üllatuseks) and an allative after a heading line are not flagged, and neither is a partitive pronoun that a following participle governs (Teatame Teid puudutavatest muudatustest: grammatical, but Teatame Teile ... reads better).

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 direct-object case errors under negation and partitive-governing verbs."New value: +"Estonian text."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / text / title
```
Removed value: -"Text"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"check_object_caseArguments"
```
- 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

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact rules, known exclusions, low recall by design, and the important caveat that a hit may be a subject or adverbial without a parser, so it should be treated as worth a second look. These are substantive behavioral details that annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) do not cover.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the rule structure is clear, but the description is very long and dense for a single-parameter checker. Many examples and exclusions earn their place for behavioral transparency, yet the text could be tightened and made easier to scan.

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?

Given the complexity of the grammar rules and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. It covers the core rules, exceptions, false-positive behavior, and recall limitations without needing to explain return values.

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 the single `text` parameter is already documented as 'Estonian text.' The description does not add further parameter-level semantics such as input length limits, language constraints, or formatting expectations beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it flags a direct object in the wrong case and names the exact rule families (negation-requires-partitive, partitive-only-verb, teavitama-allative-recipient, teatama-partitive-person). It is highly specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as check_style, analyze_morphology, or paradigm.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the rule descriptions and by the note that recall is low by design, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to call it. An agent must infer that it is for Estonian object-case proofreading from the purpose statement alone.

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