Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GadgetHumans API Hub

by com.gadgethumans
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

soundex

Compute the Soundex code for a name and compare two names for phonetic similarity. Pure CPU, instant. Use for fuzzy name matching.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "soundex"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName to encode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name to encode",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name"
+]
  4. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: 'Pure CPU' (no network, no side effects) and 'instant' (latency expectations). It does not state that the operation is deterministic and read-only, nor what the output looks like, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The 'compare two names' clause is the only element that fails to earn its place, since it is not supported by the schema.

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 one-parameter utility with no output schema, the description should say what is returned (a four-character Soundex code versus a similarity verdict) and resolve the single-versus-two-name discrepancy. It covers the safety/latency profile but leaves the response shape and the comparison semantics undefined.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, which would normally justify a baseline 3. However, the description advertises comparing two names while the schema declares only one required string, creating ambiguity about whether a second argument is accepted via additionalProperties or whether the comparison feature is unavailable.

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 the Soundex code for a name') and adds a differentiation signal ('Use for fuzzy name matching') that separates it from siblings like levenshtein or word_similarity. The secondary claim about comparing two names muddies the scope, since it is unclear whether that is the same tool or an extension.

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?

'Use for fuzzy name matching' implies the usage context, but no alternative tools (levenshtein, word_similarity, hash_compare) are named and no when-not conditions are given. An agent gets a hint about the domain but must infer when this beats the other similarity tools.

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

All GadgetHumans API Hub toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources