Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Number format check

number_format_check
Read-only

Audit how numbers are displayed. Pass numbers (the strings exactly as shown, as a list or newline or comma-separated text; JSON numbers lose their formatting so strings are better), context (axis, tooltip, table cell, headline), and optionally locale (en-US, de-DE, fr-FR and so on), raw (the unrounded values in the same order, to test whether rounding creates ties or reverses the ranking) and total (a stated total to compare with the displayed parts). Checks: consistent decimal places, mixed thousands or decimal separators, the ambiguity of a lone separator before three digits (1,000 versus 1.000), missing grouping on long numbers, mixed k, M, B suffixes and the lowercase m trap, mixed or repeated units and currency, negative-number styles, right-alignment and tabular figures for table cells, uneven axis ticks, false precision, and rounding that changes ranking or breaks a sum. Returns findings and, where the set is uniform enough, a suggested reformatting. Pure computation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "numbers": "<numbers>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "number_format_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoUnrounded values in the same order as `numbers`.
totalNoStated total of the displayed parts.
localeNoBCP 47 locale such as en-US or de-DE.
contextYes
numbersYesNumbers as displayed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, read-only, closed-world computation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the checks performed, states that it returns findings and sometimes suggested reformatting, and clarifies that it is pure computation.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the required inputs before optional parameters and the check list. It is appropriately sized for a nontrivial audit tool, though the long checklist sentence could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and a complex audit scope, the description is largely complete: it covers input formats, optional contextual inputs, checks performed, and the nature of the return value. It does not specify the exact structure of findings, but the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds substantive meaning beyond the schema, especially for `numbers`: it explains that strings preserve formatting while JSON numbers lose it, and that list/newline/comma-separated forms are accepted. It also clarifies why `raw` and `total` exist (tie/ranking and sum tests) and gives examples of `context` and `locale` values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: audit how numbers are displayed. It enumerates concrete formatting issues (separators, suffixes, rounding, alignment), which distinguishes it from adjacent review tools such as review_date_number_formats.

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?

Usage is implied by the input parameters and the checks listed, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives or what exclusions apply. An agent can infer the tool is for auditing displayed number formatting, but routing guidance is thin.

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

All Designers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources