estonian-mcp

check_term_consistency

Read-onlyIdempotent

Flag inconsistent terminology in an Estonian document by grouping variant terms, showing usage counts and the dominant or glossary-preferred form for review.

Instructions

Flag a document that names one thing several ways (andmestik, teadusandmestik, pildiandmestik).

Rules: shared-compound-head (a bare noun plus a compound on it, or 3+ lemmas sharing a head) and shared-wordnet-synset (two of the 40 most frequent nouns share a WordNet synset). Each group gives variants with counts and dominant, the most used. Some groups are distinct concepts and the tool does not pick the right term: read each first.

degraded: true means WordNet is missing and the synset rule did not run: no groups is then no proof of consistency.

With a domain glossary (the server's or glossary), variants carry in_domain_glossary, and a group's only listed variant is its preferred term, whatever dominant says (several listed suggest distinct concepts).

Misses synonyms sharing neither head nor synset (korpus / andmestik): compare their synonyms definitions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The whole Estonian document, not one paragraph at a time.
`glossary`	No	Optional domain lemmas (base forms) for this call only, added to any server glossary. Not stored.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groups`	No
`degraded`	No
`terms_analysed`	No
`summary_estonian`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed17 schema fields changedv0.9.0Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / glossary

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "maxLength": 200,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 1000,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional domain lemmas (base forms) for this call only, added to any server glossary. Not stored."
+}

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Estonian document to check for the same thing being named several different ways."New value: +"The whole Estonian document, not one paragraph at a time."

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

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"check_term_consistencyArguments"

removedOutput schema / properties / degraded / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / degraded / title
```
Removed value: -"Degraded"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / groups / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / groups / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
removedOutput schema / properties / groups / title
```
Removed value: -"Groups"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / note

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

removedOutput schema / properties / rules_run

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Rules Run",
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian / title
```
Removed value: -"Summary Estonian"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / terms_analysed / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / terms_analysed / title
```
Removed value: -"Terms Analysed"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / text

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

removedOutput schema / title

Removed value: -"_TermConsistencyResult"

Addedv0.5.6Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the two detection heuristics by name, the output fields (variants, counts, dominant, preferred, in_domain_glossary), the meaning of degraded: true and its consequence that empty output proves nothing, and an explicit known miss (synonyms sharing neither head nor synset). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a checker.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and no sentence is filler; the rules, degraded mode, and glossary effects each appear once. The prose is telegraphic in places ('no groups is then no proof of consistency'), which costs some readability but not content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, yet it usefully does. It covers limitations, degraded behavior, and glossary interaction; the main remaining gap is guidance on choosing this tool over the domain-terms and defined-terms siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that supplying a glossary changes the returned data (in_domain_glossary flags, and a sole listed variant becoming preferred regardless of dominant). The glossary's per-call, non-stored nature is already in the schema, so no credit there.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and outcome ('Flag a document that names one thing several ways') with a concrete Estonian example, so the agent knows exactly what class of problem it detects. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as check_domain_terms or check_defined_terms, leaving the agent to guess which check to run.

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?

The description explains the two triggering rules and warns that 'some groups are distinct concepts and the tool does not pick the right term: read each first', which governs how to interpret hits. But it never says when to call this versus check_domain_terms, check_defined_terms, or check_redundancy, and gives no prerequisite about document language or size beyond the schema.

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