单位换算，支持四类：长度(m/km/cm/mm/mile/foot/inch，含毫米/厘米/英里/英尺/英寸)、重量(kg/g/mg/t/lb/oz，含克/磅/盎司)、温度(c/f/k，摄氏度/华氏度/开尔文，自动做偏移换算)、数据存储(B/KB/MB/GB/TB/PB，按1024二进制换算)。不支持的单位或跨类别换算（如米换算成千克）会返回清晰错误。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| to_unit | Yes | ||
| from_unit | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral nuances: temperature conversions automatically handle offset calculations, data storage uses binary 1024 multipliers, and unsupported/cross-category inputs error out. It doesn't mention the return format or side effects, but this is a stateless conversion tool with no obvious side effects.
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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the tool's purpose, lists categories with alemative unit names, notes special offset behavior, and covers error handling. No redundant or filler content is present.
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?
Given the moderate complexity, the description covers supported categories, unit inventories, special conversion rules, and error behavior. There is no output schema, so a brief mention of the return value format would have rounded it out, but the absence is a minor gap because conversion tools typically return the converted numeric result.
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 0% and there are no enums, so the description must compensate. It does by enumerating valid unit tokens for each category and specifying that the conversion types include length, weight, temperature, and data storage. It could add exact accepted aliases or case-sensitivity, but the provided unit lists give an agent enough to construct a valid from_unit/to_unit.
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 states a specific verb and resource: '单位换算' (unit conversion), and enumerates the exact supported categories (length, weight, emm、celsius/fahrenheit/kelvin, data storage). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like convert_timestamp, format_json, generate_qr, and generate_uuid, since none of those deal with unit conversion.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool by listing the four supported unit families and explicitly states that unsupported units or cross-category conversions return a clear error. It doesn't name alternatives, but the sibling tools are obviously unrelated to unit conversion, so no explicit when-not routing is necessary.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct operation: timestamp conversion, unit conversion, JSON processing, QR generation, and UUID generation. There is no functional overlap or realistic chance of selecting the wrong tool.
All names follow a clear verb_object snake_case pattern: convert_timestamp, convert_unit, format_json, generate_qr, generate_uuid. The verb prefixes consistently reflect the action category.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for a focused developer utility server; each tool provides a distinct, reusable capability and none feels redundant or extraneous.
Each utility is functionally self-contained: timestamp conversion works in both directions, JSON supports format/minify/validate, QR supports SVG/PNG, and UUID supports v4/v5. The set is a loose collection rather than a tightly defined domain, so common utilities like hashing or base64 are absent, but this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.