Skip to main content
Glama

gcd_lcm

Compute greatest common divisor and least common multiple for a list of integers. Pure CPU, instant.

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>"
    },
    "name": "gcd_lcm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numbersYesComma-separated integers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / numbers
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Comma-separated integers",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "numbers"
      +]
  4. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Pure CPU, instant' usefully signals a deterministic, side-effect-free, non-network operation, but it says nothing about edge-case handling (negatives, zero, single value, non-numeric input) or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its inputs, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple pure function with one parameter this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never states the return shape (e.g., a pair of gcd/lcm values) or how invalid input is handled, leaving the agent to guess.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Comma-separated integers'. The description only echoes 'a list of integers' without adding format, delimiter, or range detail, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Compute greatest common divisor and least common multiple for a list of integers'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like math_eval or prime. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those nearby math tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over math_eval or prime, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the stated purpose.

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.

Resources