post_data_transform
Normalize and transform common structured text automatically.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| operation | No | auto |
ProfitCollector
by ca.bakhour
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'automatically' hints at auto-detection of the operation, but the description does not explain how that behaves, what happens on unrecognized input, or what output format to expect. This is especially weak for a POST tool.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for the tool's apparent breadth—conciseness here comes at the cost of useful details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the enum-based operation parameter and the availability of sibling tools for each specific transformation, the description is not complete enough. It does not list the supported operations, explain the auto mode, or clarify the relationship to specialized sibling endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain the 'operation' enum, the default 'auto' behavior, or how each operation affects the 'text' input. The mention of 'structured text' is the only indirect clue about the text parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a general purpose—normalizing and transforming structured text—but it is vague. It does not mention specific supported transformations such as JSON pretty/minify, Base64, or deduplication, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like post_json_pretty or post_base64_encode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that cover specific operations. The description does not say 'use this for auto-detected transformations' or 'use the dedicated tool for X'. An agent must infer usage entirely from the schema and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools occupy the same security-audit space: get_dns_lookup/get_domain_intelligence, get_security_posture/get_web_audit/post_domain_due_diligence, and the three post_security_repo_risk_report variants heavily overlap. Video generation is split only by duration, and get_ssl_check/get_security_posture both target TLS/certificate concerns, so an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tools use snake_case and a get_/ post_ prefix, which is a recognizable convention and generally readable. However, the suffix order is inconsistent (get_url_parse vs get_security_posture vs post_security_repo_risk_repport_standard), and get/post are HTTP-style prefixes rather than semantic verbs, so the pattern is only partially coherent.
Tool Count2/5
34 tools is well above the 'too many' threshold and spans unrelated domains: domain security, repo risk, JSON/hash/text utilities, media generation, Quebec invoices, and x402 payments. Many tools are variants that could be consolidated (video durations, risk report tiers, audit scopes), so the count feels inflated rather than purposeful.
Completeness2/5
The set lacks a single apparent domain, so no complete lifecycle is clearly covered: video generation has no status/retrieval, repo risk reporting is read-only, and common companions (URL encoding, current timestamp, image analysis) are missing. It is a broad collection of one-off utilities rather than a coherent functional surface.