Skip to main content
Glama

paradigm

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate all inflected forms for an Estonian word, including cases, tenses, and moods. Resolves ambiguous words by selecting the correct inflection pattern.

Instructions

Generate the full inflection paradigm for an Estonian word.

For nominals (nouns, adjectives, pronouns, cardinals, ordinals, comparatives, superlatives): produces all 14 cases × 2 numbers = up to 28 forms. For verbs: produces infinitives, present/past/conditional indicative, imperative, and participles (~30 forms). Other parts of speech (adverbs, conjunctions, particles) don't inflect, so forms is empty.

Each form entry has the Vabamorf form code (e.g. sg p, ksin), its Estonian label (e.g. ainsuse osastav, tingiv 1.p ainsus), and the surface form Vabamorf generated. Use form_estonian verbatim in Estonian replies — don't translate the English form code.

AMBIGUOUS LEMMAS. Some lemmas belong to more than one inflection type (kott inflects as either koti or kota, two different words that share a nominative). forms is then one internally consistent paradigm, paradigm_key names it by its singular genitive, paradigm_count says how many exist, and the rest are in other_paradigms. Read ambiguity_estonian before quoting a form. Pass an inflected form (koti) rather than the bare lemma when you know which word you mean: that selects the paradigm exactly.

Phase-1 scope: covers the most commonly-needed forms per word class, not every theoretical form Vabamorf can produce. Single-word input, capped at 200 characters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wordYesA single Estonian word (lemma or inflected form) to generate the full paradigm for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
formsNo
inputNo
lemmaNo
invariantNo
word_classNo
paradigm_keyNo
partofspeechNo
paradigm_countNo
other_paradigmsNo
reading_estonianNo
summary_estonianNo
ambiguity_estonianNo
invariant_estonianNo
word_class_estonianNo
partofspeech_estonianNo
ranked_by_corpus_frequencyNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: exactly what forms are produced, the ambiguity handling with `paradigm_key` and `other_paradigms`, the use of Vabamorf form codes, and Phase-1 scope restrictions. This gives an agent a rich and accurate model of what the tool will and won't do.

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?

The description is lengthy but every paragraph serves a purpose, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It uses readable paragraph breaks to cover the main behavior, ambiguity, and usage constraints without redundancy.

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 combinatorial complexity of Estonian inflection and multiple word classes, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers ambiguous lemmas, forms structure, Estonian labels, input disambiguation, scope limits, and output guidance, with an output schema also present for the rest.

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?

The schema already documents the single `word` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable usage nuance: passing an inflected form instead of a bare lemma selects the exact paradigm, and input is capped at 200 characters. This goes beyond the schema without overcomplicating it.

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?

The description opens with 'Generate the full inflection paradigm for an Estonian word', giving a clear verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes nominal versus verb paradigms and is easily differentiated from sibling tools like analyze_morphology and lemmatize, which do analytical rather than paradigm-generation work.

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 usage context: which parts of speech inflect, that non-inflecting words return empty `forms`, and that inflected lemmas should be passed to disambiguate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool relative to sibling tools, but the practical guidance is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/silly-geese/estonian-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server