Skip to main content
Glama

Kaprekar Steps

kaprekar_steps
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many steps the four-digit Kaprekar routine takes to reach 6174. 6174 takes 0, 3524 takes 3, 5 takes 6, and 14 takes 7. A repdigit is rejected. n runs from 0 to 9999. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/kaprekar-steps

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": {
      "n": "<n>"
    },
    "name": "kaprekar_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema behavior: repdigits are rejected, plus pricing (x402/USDC) and an alternate HTTPS endpoint. That is real added context beyond the structured fields.

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 core definition and examples come first, then edge-case rule, then pricing/endpoint. Slightly padded by the commercial/endpoint lines, but every sentence conveys usable information.

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?

For a one-parameter pure function with annotations covering safety, the description supplies inputs, output semantics via examples, an error condition, and access details. Return values aren't spelled out, but the step-count output is evident from the examples.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: n is bounded 0–9999, four sample values map inputs to outputs, and the repdigit exclusion documents an error case. It compensates well for an undescribed schema.

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: the number of steps the four-digit Kaprekar routine takes to reach 6174. Worked examples (6174→0, 3524→3, 5→6, 14→7) make the operation concrete. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling Kaprekar tools (kaprekar_step, kaprekar_chain, kaprekar_kernel), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The examples imply what kind of input is appropriate and the repdigit rejection plus 0–9999 range set the domain, but the description never says when to pick this over kaprekar_step or kaprekar_chain. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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