find_rhymesFind words that rhyme with a given word, ranked by score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | The word to find rhymes for | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 10) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | The word rhymes were found for | |
| results | Yes | List of rhyming words ranked by score |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "description": "List of rhyming words ranked by score",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "score": {
+ "description": "Rhyme match score",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "word": {
+ "description": "The rhyming word",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "word",
+ "score"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "word": {
+ "description": "The word rhymes were found for",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "word",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "word": "cat"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 8,
+ "word": "mountain"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are 'ranked by score', which is not present in annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and key output ordering, earning its place entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the essential purpose and behavior without needing to explain return formats or edge cases, which the output schema covers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (word and limit) sufficiently. The description only mentions 'given word' and does not add further parameter detail, leaving the schema to carry the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: finding words that rhyme with a given word, ranked by score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_synonyms or find_words, which address different lexical relations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for rhyming words, implying it should be used when rhyme matches are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and find_related with syn/rhy options duplicates find_synonyms and find_rhymes. The six Polymarket tools and four entity-research tools also have fuzzy boundaries, so agents will struggle to reliably pick the right one.
Conventions are mixed: most tools follow verb_noun (ask_, find_, compare_, validate_) but several are bare nouns or noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alertes, recent_changes) and others are bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The server name 'words' matches only five of 36 tools, adding further confusion about what to expect here.
36 tools is well into the heavy range, and the set bundles word lookups, a universal data router, six Polymarket tools, memory, subscriptions, and meta-utilities under one server. Many of these would be better split into dedicated, purpose-scoped servers.
For the dominant data-research and prediction-market scope, the surface is strong: grounded lookups, deep reseach, entity profiles, compareions, change feeds, claim verification, edge scanners, fill-risk checks, subscriptions, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist: taking 'words' literally there is no defintion or spelling tool, and there is no generic open-web search, but as a data-research toolkit it is quite complete.